From Holding Fast to Authority: The First of Sixty-Six Indications of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, in Critique of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dihlawī
Author: Hamed Sarem
Dehlavi considers the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things unrelated to the question of the authority and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt. Yet the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, in his very first response, targets this claim with a weapon drawn from within the Sunni tradition. When renowned Sunni commentators and hadith scholars themselves have interpreted “holding fast to the عِترة” as following, emulating, being guided by, and acquiring knowledge from them, Dehlavi’s position is no longer merely a disagreement with the Shi‘i reading; it is a denial of an apparent meaning acknowledged even by those opposed to the Imāmiyya. This article revisits the first of the sixty-six responses in ʿAbaqāt: the point at which the “opponent’s admission” closes off interpretation based on personal opinion and sets Dehlavi’s claim against the testimony of his own sources.
An abstract of this article has been posted on the website: “A Summary of the First Aspect … The Indication of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.”
Abstract
This article examines only one discrete unit of the debate over the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār: ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dehlavi’s objection, the author of ʿAbaqāt’s preliminary response, and the “first aspect” among the sixty-six aspects. Dehlavi claims that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things has no connection to the Imāmiyya’s claim concerning the authority and imamate, because the fact that something is to be held fast to does not entail that it holds supreme authority. Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Hindī challenges this categorical denial along two lines: first, by relying on the apparent meaning of the hadith’s structure, which places the Qur’an and the عِترة in a single relationship of guidance and under a single ruling of holding fast; and second, by surveying the statements of Sunni scholars who have interpreted holding fast to the عِترة through concepts such as “being guided,” “emulation,” “following,” “learning,” “acquiring knowledge,” and “not opposing.” Thus, the author of ʿAbaqāt’s argument rests not merely on an intramural understanding, but on the principle of “binding the opponent by his own premises” and recourse to the “opponent’s admission”—a method that seriously limits the possibility of attributing the conclusion to personal interpretation or interpretation based on personal opinion. In addition to fully reconstructing the evidence cited by the author of ʿAbaqāt, the article examines two important grammatical and literary analyses in the words of ʿAlī ʿAzīzī and ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān Damantī. It also analyzes the connection between the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things and the hadith of mutual affection in Ḥasan al-Zamān’s narration, in terms of its indication of following and obedience. The study concludes that even if all the theological implications of the hadith are disputed, Dehlavi’s categorical claim that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is unrelated to the authority and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt is compatible neither with the initial apparent meaning of the hadith’s structure nor with the interpretation offered by a group of prominent Sunni scholars themselves.
Keywords: Hadith of the Two Weighty Things; ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dehlavi; Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Hindī; binding the opponent by his own premises; opponent’s admission; holding fast; following; authority of the Ahl al-Bayt; imamate; comprehensive survey.
1. Introduction: From the Transmission Dossier to the Beginning of the Sixty-Six Responses on Indication
At this point, the course of discussion in *Abaqat al-Anwar* moves from the “transmission file” to the “indication file.” Before entering into the semantic dispute over the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, the author of *Abaqat* gathers, on a broad scale, the various forms of the hadith, differences in wording, and related transmissions. After closing this file, he quotes ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dihlawi’s statement denying that the hadith is connected to the Imamiyya’s claim. It is precisely here that the heading “The Author’s Sixty-Six Arguments in Refutation of the Author of *Tuhfa*” begins. The response of the author of *Abaqat* is therefore not confined to one limited formulation: he organizes a network of linguistic, syntactic, hadith, exegetical, theological, and polemical arguments, each of which can be examined independently. This article deliberately focuses only on the first argument, because in its evidence, reasoning, and method of argumentation, this argument forms an independent and complete case and can by itself test the soundness of al-Dihlawi’s claim.
The importance of the first argument lies not only in its conclusion, but also in its method of proof. Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi does not begin by trying to impose the entire theory of the Imamate on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things all at once. He first takes a more basic step and asks: What does “holding fast to the ‘itra” mean in the language of the hadith? His answer to this question is not based solely on Imami interpretation. The author of *Abaqat* turns to hadith commentators, traditionists, theologians, and Sunni scholars, and especially highlights statements by speakers who do not belong, religiously, to the Imami camp, some of whom are even counted among its well-known opponents. Thus, the argument goes beyond an intra-sectarian reading and takes the form of compelling an opponent: the meaning to be used against al-Dihlawi’s denial is reported not merely in the words of the Imamiyya, but in the words of commentators and scholars of the very scholarly tradition to which al-Dihlawi himself belongs.
From the perspective of research logic and critical thinking, this method has several fundamental advantages. First, before reaching a judgment, the author of *Abaqat* broadens the field of evidence and does not base the conclusion on a single transmission. Second, his evidence is neither of one kind nor from one author; rather, it is drawn from the fields of hadith commentary, theology, exegesis, lexicography, and literary analysis. Third, and most importantly, some of the evidence comes from people who had no motive to affirm the Imamiyya’s claim, and whose words cannot be considered the product of “Shi‘i interpretation.” In the logic of argument, such evidence has additional weight because it is of the kind known as an opponent’s admission and “testimony against expectation”; as the well-known expression puts it, “الأفضل ما أقرّ به الأعداء” (“The best [evidence] is that which the enemies acknowledge”). In such a situation, it becomes harder to attribute the conclusion to interpretation based on personal opinion or to individual understanding, because the author of *Abaqat* seeks first to establish the hadith’s minimum meaning through the words of people who do not share his school in the final conclusion.
From this perspective, Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi’s method may be called maximal fact-finding and extensive, case-specific induction. This does not mean that he has exhaustively surveyed every Sunni scholar in every period without exception. Rather, it means that, within the bounds of a specific question—namely, the meaning of holding fast to the ‘itra in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things—he gathers so many diverse and independent pieces of evidence that the conclusion does not remain dependent on one or two selectively chosen statements. This very feature turns the first argument from a purely sectarian polemic into a noteworthy example of exhaustive research, immanent critique, and the methodical compelling of an opponent.
And it is precisely here that al-Dihlawi’s claim becomes vulnerable: if holding fast to the ‘itra, as a group of Sunni commentators and scholars have explicitly stated, includes following, being guided, compliance, acquiring knowledge, and not opposing, then one can no longer use a general statement to empty the hadith of any connection to the authority and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt. From this point on, the dispute is not over some remote and intricate interpretation; it is over the primary apparent meanings of the words themselves.
The central principle of the discussion: When the Prophet places the Qur’an and the ‘itra side by side through conjunction, refers back to both with a dual pronoun, and links salvation from misguidance, within a single structure of condition and result, to holding fast to “both,” separating the ‘itra from the Qur’an’s guiding relation runs counter to the apparent meaning of the structure of the statement. The discussion may concern the scope and implications of this authority; but denying its very basis, before adducing proof, is a departure from the apparent meaning of the hadith. 2. The full text of al-Dihlawi’s objection and its logical reconstruction The author of *Abaqat* quotes ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dihlawi’s statement as follows: “And this hadith, like the preceding hadiths, has no bearing on the claimant; for it is not necessary that the one to whom one holds fast be the possessor of supreme leadership.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 26; PDF: 37.
In today’s language, al-Dahlawī’s argument is this: The Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, like the preceding hadiths, has no connection to the Imāmī claim concerning the imamate and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt; for the mere fact that a person or thing is made an object of adherence does not entail that the same person holds supreme authority and leadership of the community.
This objection consists of two propositions: first, a categorical negation: “The Hadith of the Two Weighty Things has no connection to the claim of the imamate”; and second, the reason offered for this negation: “Being something to which one adheres does not, in itself, entail supreme authority.”
At first glance, the second proposition seems acceptable as a general, abstract statement. Not everything to which a person adheres is necessarily a “leader”; one may adhere to a principle, rule, piece of advice, or means without attributing to it a leadership role. But the main problem with al-Dahlawī’s argument lies precisely in this abstraction. The subject of the dispute is not “the concept of something to which one adheres in the absolute”; it is the object of adherence within the particular structure of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things.
Therefore, the correct question is not:
“Does every object of adherence, in every usage, hold supreme authority?”
Rather, one must ask:
When the Prophet places the Qur’an and the ‘itra side by side, situates adherence to both within a single structure of guidance, refers the dual pronoun back to both, and links deliverance from misguidance to this adherence, what place does the ‘itra occupy in this theological framework?
The difference between these two questions is fundamental. Dehlawi takes a general proposition—“not everything that is adhered to is a leader”—and draws from it a conclusion about a particular instance, with a set of additional contextual indicators, without allowing those indicators to enter into his argument. The first aspect raised by the author of ‘Abaqat targets precisely this point: before judging the ultimate implications of the hadith, one must see what “adherence to the ‘itra” means in this very hadith and how its commentators have understood it.
A Major Logical Flaw in Dehlawi’s Argument
There is also a clear gap between Dehlawi’s premise and conclusion in the form of his argument. Even if it is accepted that:
“Being something to be adhered to does not, by itself and in every case, entail supreme leadership,”
It never follows from this proposition that:
“Thus, the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn has no connection whatsoever with leadership and the imamate.”
Denying a general entailment is not the same as establishing that a particular case is unrelated.
To put it more clearly, it is one thing to say that the description “adherence” alone is insufficient to prove the imamate; it is quite another to say that a hadith which, in addition to adherence, includes the indicia of association with the Qur’an, guidance, the negation of misguidance, following, and other contextual indicators has no relation whatsoever to authority and leadership. To prove the latter, Dehlavi must show that none of the hadith’s actual components, and none of the relations among them, indicate emulation, following, or authority; whereas in the first aspect, the author of ‘Abaqat shows precisely the opposite, citing Sunni scholars.
Why is Dehlavi’s “universal negation” vulnerable?
Dehlavi’s statement is not merely that the hadith “does not fully establish the imamate”; his claim goes much further: he presents the hadith as having no connection at all with the Imamiyya’s claim. This categorical assertion places a heavy burden of proof on him.
To overturn such an absolute denial, it is not necessary to establish all the foundations of Imamate in the very first step. It is enough to show that the hadith genuinely establishes one of the links that bears on that claim—such as following, adherence, guidance-based authority, or the acquisition of knowledge. In that case, the proposition “there is no connection whatsoever” can no longer be maintained, even though discussion of how far this authority extends may continue in subsequent stages.
The strength of Mir Hamid Husain Hindi’s method becomes clear precisely here. To break Dehlawi’s blanket denial, he does not rely on a single piece of evidence; rather, he brings forward a body of Sunni scholars who have explained “adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt” in terms such as being guided by their guidance, following, emulation, learning, acquiring knowledge, and avoiding opposition. The author of Abaqat himself also states explicitly that he cites these views from Sunni scholars “to complete the proof” (itmāman lil-ḥujja).
Thus, the issue is no longer merely a dispute between a “Shi‘i interpretation” and a “Dehlawi interpretation.” Dehlawi finds himself facing a body of interpretations that emerged from his own scholarly tradition. If commentators of that same school have interpreted adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt as following and emulation, then the claim that the hadith has absolutely no connection to the authority of the Ahl al-Bayt conflicts not only with Imami reasoning, but also with the hadith’s apparent meaning and with part of the understanding of Dehlawi’s own school.
3. The Author of Abaqat’s Introduction: Announcing the Arena of Proof
After quoting the objection, the author of Abaqat begins his introductory reply with these words:
“I say: It is not hidden or concealed from those endowed with discernment and understanding, and those possessed of knowledge and insight, that this luminous hadith’s indication of the claim of the people of truth is of the utmost clarity and manifestness, and its connection to their praiseworthy aim is of the greatest fullness and openness. Failure to perceive and sense its bearing on the claim stems from the addressee’s weak insight and corrupt inner nature, he who is immense in transgression and wrongdoing. In truth, uttering these words that deny any bearing on the claim has established that the unjust addressee follows the path of the ever-suspicious Samaritan, casting the dust of humiliation upon his brow and head. With the aid of God, the Mighty, and His abundant grace, we shall here establish the luminous hadith’s clear indication of our claim through several decisive arguments. By making the subject and purpose plain, and confounding adversaries and disputants, we shall, God the Bestower willing, make the manifest truth and sincere verity shine forth like light that drives away darkness.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 26; PDF: 37.
This introduction should not be substituted for an argument; the author of ʿAbaqāt immediately promises “several decisive arguments” and then presents sixty-six arguments. Thus, his forceful tone does not signal an absence of proof; it is a severe judgment made after the argumentative position has been established. In this article, if the expression “a great lie” is used about al-Dihlawī’s statement, its precise meaning is this: “an absolute, factually false denial in representing the hadith’s import”—not a claim to have access to al-Dihlawī’s inner intention. The magnitude of the falsehood becomes clear because his denial conflicts not only with the Imāmī reading, but also with the text’s prima facie meaning and with the statements of numerous scholars of his own school.
4. Precise Presentation of the First Argument: The Ahl al-Bayt’s Sharing with the Qur’an in Their Guiding Relationship
The title that the author of ʿAbaqāt chooses for the first argument clearly indicates the direction of the reasoning:
“Argument 1: Establishing that the hadith indicates the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt, and citing the statements of Sunni scholars as evidence for this point.”
He then presents the claim of the first argument as follows:
“The first aspect is this: This noble hadith establishes, without doubt or uncertainty and without ambiguity or concealment, that following the Ahl al-Bayt of His Eminence, the Messenger—may God’s blessings be upon him and his family, and upon him and them thousands upon thousands of salutations from the Lord of all lords—is obligatory, incumbent, prescribed, and binding upon the entire community of the Messenger in all religious acts and deeds and in all beliefs and rulings of the sacred law. It is evident that being someone whose example must be followed in all matters after His Eminence, the Messenger, can only be conceived of in the case of one who possesses supreme authority and the greatest imamate, and attains the rank of his succession and vicegerency…”
The argument in this passage has two stages, and distinguishing between them is essential for understanding the first aspect precisely.
At the first stage, the issue is the kind of relationship between the community and the ‘itrah. Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi’s claim is not that anyone called “one to whom recourse is made” in any text is necessarily an Imam; rather, the argument begins with the distinctive structure of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn. The Qur’an and the ‘itrah are placed alongside one another in a single prophetic statement, and adherence to “the two” is linked to guidance and deliverance from misguidance. Thus, the ‘itrah enters into the very structure in which the Qur’an is the authority for guidance.
Accordingly, the first claim can be stated in more technical terms as follows:
In every respect in which the Qur’an is made an object of adherence and an authority for the community’s guidance within the structure of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, the ‘itrah too is included in that same respect, by virtue of the conjunction, the dual pronouns, and their shared participation in the hadith’s relationship of guidance—unless valid evidence is presented for distinguishing between the two weighty things.
The importance of this formulation is that it avoids two extremes: nothing beyond the text’s capacity is imposed on the hadith, and the ‘itrah is not reduced to an object of “mere love” in a way that contradicts the hadith’s own structure. The starting point is the shared relationship of guidance; discussion of the ultimate scope and theological implications of this relationship belongs to the next stage.
From Sharing in Guidance to the Obligation to Follow
The second stage of the author of ʿAbaqāt’s argument begins here. If holding fast to the Qur’an means turning to it for guidance, accepting its instruction, acting on its commands and prohibitions, and establishing it as the standard, then placing the ʿItrat alongside the Qur’an entails that the relationship with the ʿItrat, too, must not be merely emotional or ceremonial. In other words, in the hadith the ʿItrat are not only objects of love; they are objects of guidance and following.
وهذه هي بالضبط النقطة التي تُوقِع كلام الدهلوي في إشكال. فقد حوّل الدهلوي المسألة إلى سؤال تجريدي: «هل كل ما يُتمسَّك به صاحبُ زعامة؟» لكن صاحب العبقات يعيد المسألة إلى صورتها الواقعية: ما العلاقة بمرجعية الأمة لمن وُضع إلى جانب القرآن موضوعًا للتمسك المانع من الضلال، وكان على الأمة أن تتبعه في مجال الهداية؟
Thus, in its initial step, the first aspect above all breaks the Dehlawi’s claim of “unrelatedness.” Even before entering into all the implications of the Imamate, if it is established that the hadith gives the ʿItrat the status of being followed, emulated, and a source of guidance, it can no longer be said that the hadith “has no bearing” on the question of the leadership and authority of the Ahl al-Bayt.
The Second Link: From the Comprehensive Obligation to Follow to Leadership
The author of ʿAbaqāt then takes another step: if this obligation to follow is not limited and particular, but extends—as he himself puts it—to “all religious acts and deeds, and all beliefs and legal rulings,” then such authority is no longer a secondary scholarly virtue or an ethical recommendation; rather, it is a comprehensive office in guiding the community. On this basis, he says that someone whose following is obligatory in this way after the Prophet cannot be unrelated to “the supreme leadership” and “the greatest Imamate.”
His chain of reasoning can therefore be reconstructed as follows:
The pairing of the ʿItrat with the Qur’an in the hadith’s structure of guidance ← the obligation to adhere to and follow the ʿItrat ← comprehensive authority in religious guidance ← the incompatibility of this status with an absolute denial of leadership and Imamate.
This reconstruction shows that the author of ʿAbaqāt does not move from the word “adherence” alone, and without an intermediary, to “Imamate”; rather, the intermediary link in his argument is the obligation to follow the ʿItrat and its authority in guidance.
“To Complete the Proof”: Moving from Sectarian Interpretation to Binding the Opponent
The important methodological point in the first aspect becomes clear immediately after this claim is stated. The author of ʿAbaqāt writes that, despite the hadith’s clear indication of following the Ahl al-Bayt, it is appropriate to quote the words of Sunni scholars as well in support of this meaning, “to complete the proof.”
This expression is not decorative wording; it sets out the argument’s plan. Mir Hamid Husain Hindi could have continued the discussion on the same basis after establishing the hadith’s apparent meaning, but he does not do so. He seeks to remove an important possibility from the path of the argument as well: that someone might say, “‘following and emulation’ are merely a Shi‘i interpretation of the hadith.”
Therefore, he draws his witness from within the opponent’s own scholarly tradition.
In the logic of debate, this method is a clear instance of binding the opponent by his own premises; and whenever the person offering the testimony is himself a well-known opponent of the Imami school, its value comes closer to that of an “admission by the opponent.” The importance of these testimonies does not lie in their authors necessarily having accepted all of Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi’s theological conclusions; rather, it lies in the fact that the main premise of his argument—that understanding adherence to the ʿitra as guidance, emulation, following, and the acquisition of knowledge—is no longer dismissible by labeling it a “Shiʿi interpretation.”
Here the first line of argument takes on its distinctive form: the author of ʿAbaqāt first sets out the apparent meaning of the hadith, then, to establish that same apparent meaning, calls as witnesses those who cannot be accused of following Imami presuppositions. Testimony issued by an opponent carries greater probative value for purposes of binding the opponent than testimony from a supporter.
As a result, the fundamental question of the first line of argument is no longer, “How does the Imami school interpret the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things?” Rather, it is:
If scholars of Dehlawi’s own school have understood adherence to the ʿitra as guidance, emulation, following, learning, and the acquisition of knowledge, on what basis can Dehlawi categorically deny any connection between the hadith and the authority and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt?
This question is the point of entry to the body of evidence that Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi goes on to set before Dehlawi, one item after another, in the continuation of the first line of argument.
5. Binding the Opponent and the Epistemic Value of an Opponent’s Admission
One of the pillars of Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi’s method in the first part is to shift the discussion from a “religious claim” to binding the opponent on the basis of their own premises. In the logic of debate, the rule “إلزام الخصم بما التزمه” (binding the opponent by what they have committed themselves to) concerns a situation in which a claimant, in refuting the other party, relies on a premise, source, or principle that the other party has accepted or, on the basis of their own scholarly principles, cannot easily set aside. In such an argument, the opponent need not have accepted the claimant’s final conclusion; it is enough that they have accepted a premise with which their present denial is incompatible.
The first part of ʿAbaqāt is built precisely on this point. Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi first maintains that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Hadith al-Thaqalayn) indicates following the Ahl al-Bayt, and then states explicitly that, despite the clarity of this meaning, he cites the statements of Sunni scholars “اتماماً للحجة” (to complete the proof). Thus, their words are not included in the structure of the argument merely to increase the number of sources or embellish the discussion; each citation is meant to close off part of the escape route from the hadith’s meaning.
What Does an Opponent’s Admission Prove?
“The opponent’s admission” should not be taken here to mean more than it can bear. If a Sunni scholar interprets adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt as “following” (iqtidāʾ) or “being guided” (ihtidāʾ), one cannot conclude from this statement alone that he has accepted the entirety of the Imami theory of the Imamate. The value of the admission lies at the level of a premise, not necessarily at the level of all the conclusions.
Yet even this much is decisive in disputing Dahlawi. Dahlawi denied that the hadith had any connection to the claim of the Imamate; in contrast, scholars from his own scholarly tradition understood from the hadith precisely the relationship that he seeks to reject altogether.
For example, Ṭībī understands adherence to the *ʿitra* as “loving them and following their guidance and way of life”; Taftāzānī, just as he regards adherence to the Qur’an as “acquiring knowledge and guidance,” applies the same meaning to the *ʿitra*. Faḍl Allāh ibn Rūzbihān, too, infers the necessity of following them after citing the hadith; Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī speaks of “following, adhering, and learning”; and Kamāl al-Dīn Jahrumī reflects this same meaning in his translation and explanation of Ibn Ḥajar’s words. Khafājī, too, interprets “فانظروا کیف تخلفونی فیهما” as referring to acting upon the Book of God and following the Ahl al-Bayt.
As a result, this body of evidence removes at least one point from the field of dispute: interpreting adherence to the *ʿitra* in terms of guidance, following, and emulation is not an interpretation exclusive to the Imāmiyya.
Why Does the Testimony of an Opponent Carry Greater Evidentiary Weight?
The value of this evidence stems from a clear epistemological point: the more independent a witness is of the claimant’s prior assumptions, the less likely it is that the testimony is merely a product of those same assumptions. If an Imāmī scholar understands “following the *ʿitra*” from the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, an opponent can claim that his interpretation is shaped by Imāmī premises. But when a scholar outside the Imāmī system of belief—and, in some cases, explicitly opposed to it—derives the same semantic component from the hadith, that response becomes much more difficult.
In polemical literature, this idea is referred to in expressions such as “الفضل ما شهدت به الأعداء” (“Merit is what even one’s enemies attest to”): a virtue to which even an opponent testifies acquires special value as evidence. This expression is not an independent rule in formal logic; rather, it is a literary formulation of a reasonable principle for evaluating evidence: testimony from someone who is not expected to sympathize with a claim is less open to the charge of bias when establishing at least part of that claim.
From this perspective, the “admission of the opponent” in *ʿAbaqāt* can be regarded as a witness running counter to expectation. The author of *ʿAbaqāt* is not saying that because a certain Sunni scholar has said this, the entire Imāmī claim is thereby proven and needs no argument. Rather, he is saying: if even the hadith commentators in the opposing tradition understood adherence as following, seeking guidance, emulation, and learning, then the basic meaning of this indication can no longer be reduced to “Shiʿi interpretation by personal opinion.”
The point at which Dehlavi’s claim collapses
This is where the difference between Dehlavi’s statement and the response of the author of ʿAbaqāt becomes decisive. Had Dehlavi said only, “The obligation to follow does not, by itself, establish all the levels of the Imamate claimed by the Imāmiyya,” it would still have been possible to discuss the subsequent links in the argument. But the statement attributed to him is far broader:
“This hadith … has no connection to the claimant’s contention.”
This absolute denial is undermined by the first authoritative acknowledgment of a guidance relationship between the community and the Prophet’s family—let alone the fact that the author of ʿAbaqāt brings together not just one instance, but a collection of explicit statements. When Ṭībī speaks of “being guided,” Taftāzānī of “acquiring knowledge and guidance,” Ibn Rūzbihān of “following as a model,” Ibn Ḥajar of “following as a model, adhering, and learning,” and Khafājī of “following,” the hadith can no longer be interpreted in a way that makes the Prophet’s family merely an object of respect or affection, with no guiding or authoritative relationship to the community .
6. Statements by Sunni Scholars on the First Aspect: Text, Translation, and Analysis
What follows is a sequential account of all the statements cited by the author of ʿAbaqāt under the first aspect in support of “completion of the proof,” to the same extent as they are quoted in ʿAbaqāt. The one-line introductions have been added solely to indicate each person’s scholarly standing and the weight of their argument. Biographical data have been checked against general Sunni biographical and prosopographical sources and bibliographic catalogues of their works; where information is disputed or unavailable, the uncertainty is stated explicitly.
6.1. al-Tibi in *al-Kashif ʿan Haqaʾiq al-Sunan*
Brief introduction: Sharaf al-Din Husayn ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Tibi, one of the prominent commentators on hadith and the author of *al-Kashif ʿan Haqaʾiq al-Sunan*, the well-known commentary on *Mishkat al-Masabih*; he died in 743 AH.
The author of *ʿAbaqat* quotes him as follows:
“The meaning of adhering to the Qur’an is to act according to what it contains—that is, to obey its commands and refrain from its prohibitions. The meaning of adhering to the عترة is to love them and to find guidance in their guidance and way of life.”
*ʿAbaqat al-Anwar*, vol. 20, p. 27; PDF: 38.
Translation: The meaning of adhering to the Qur’an is to act on what is stated in the Qur’an; that is, to obey its commands and refrain from its prohibitions. The meaning of adhering to the عترة is to love them and to find guidance in their guidance and way of life.
Analysis of Signification
The significance of al-Tibi’s statement lies first and foremost in the symmetrical structure of his interpretation. He uses the expression “the meaning of holding fast” twice: once with regard to the Qur’an and again with regard to the Household. Thus, he considers both Weighty Things genuinely objects of “holding fast,” and then explains the practical form this takes in relation to each.
With regard to the Qur’an, he says:
“Acting upon what it contains”
He explains this through two elements:
“Complying with its commands and abstaining from its prohibitions”
That is, for him, adherence to the Qur’an is not a ceremonial or emotional relationship; rather, it comes down to compliance, action, and regulating conduct in accordance with the Qur’an’s guidance.
When he comes to the Ahl al-Bayt, he says:
“Their love, and seeking guidance from their guidance and conduct.”
Here, the conjunction “and” between “their love” and “seeking guidance” is significant. Ṭībī did not say:
“The meaning of adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt is their love.”
So that the entire import of the hadith could be reduced to love for the Ahl al-Bayt; rather, he placed love alongside another element: “seeking guidance from their guidance and conduct.” Therefore, in Ṭībī’s own interpretation, love is only one component of adherence, and the second component is seeking guidance from the ‘itrah.
The word “al-ihtidāʾ” (seeking guidance) also goes far beyond honoring and loving in its meaning. “Ihtidāʾ bi-hadyi someone” means accepting that person and their guidance as a guide, and shaping one’s own path accordingly. The addition of “wa-sīratihim” (“and their conduct”) carries this meaning beyond the realm of knowledge alone, since “sīra” concerns a practical way and method. Thus, in al-Ṭībī’s statement, the ʿitra are presented not only as beloved by the community, but also as a source of guidance and a model for conduct.
This point directly matters to the critique of Dehlawī. Dehlawī claimed that the hadith “has no bearing” on the issue of leadership and imamate; yet one of the prominent Sunni commentators holds that “adherence to the ʿitra” itself entails seeking guidance from their guidance and conduct. It may still be debated what degree of imamate this guiding authority entails, but the hadith’s fundamental link between guidance and following the ʿitra can no longer be removed from it.
The Evidentiary Value of al-Ṭībī’s Statement
The significance of Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Hindī’s citation of al-Ṭībī does not lie in al-Ṭībī having accepted all the theological implications sought by the Imāmiyya; no such claim follows from this statement. The value of his words is more precise and, at the same time, far more consequential: a great Sunni commentator did not limit adherence to the ʿitra to mere love, but regarded “seeking guidance from their guidance and conduct” as part of the very meaning of the hadith.
Therefore, this evidence creates the first breach in Dehlawī’s absolute denial:
If adherence to the ʿitra, as al-Ṭībī explicitly states, includes “seeking guidance from their guidance and conduct” (الاهتداء بهديهم وسيرتهم), how can one then claim that the hadith has no connection whatsoever to the guiding authority of the Ahl al-Bayt?
6.2. Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid
Brief introduction: Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd ibn ʿUmar al-Taftāzānī was one of the most prominent Sunni theologians, scholars of legal theory, logicians, and men of letters, and the author of works such as Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid and al-Muṭawwal; he died in 792 AH.
The author of ʿAbaqāt quotes him in his interpretation of the ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things as follows:
“Do you not see that he, peace and blessings be upon him, joined them with the Book of God, the Exalted? Thus, holding fast to both will deliver one from misguidance. Holding fast to the Book means nothing other than taking what it contains of knowledge and guidance; the same is true of the Prophet’s family.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 27; PDF: 38.
Translation: Do you not see that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, joined them with the Book of God, the Exalted? Holding fast to both will therefore deliver one from misguidance. Holding fast to the Book means nothing other than taking what it contains of knowledge and guidance; the same is true of the Prophet’s family.
Semantic Analysis of “قرنهم بكتاب الله”: Reasoning from the Structure of the Hadith
This phrase is among the most important pieces of evidence for the first aspect, because al-Taftazani does not merely report the hadith’s conclusion; he also makes clear the linguistic and inferential basis of his understanding:
“قرنهم بكتاب الله”
The verb “qarana” means to join together and place side by side. In al-Taftazani’s view, the placement of the Ahl al-Bayt alongside the Book of God in the hadith is not an inconsequential verbal juxtaposition; rather, this very act of pairing is the source of the indication. For this reason, he immediately concludes:
“فيكون التمسك بهما منقذاً عن الضلالة”
The dual pronoun in “bihima” (“by both”) is highly significant. Deliverance from error is attributed to adherence to both, not to the Quran on the one hand and mere love of the Ahl al-Bayt on the other. In al-Taftazani’s interpretive structure, both weighty things stand in a single relationship to “deliverance from error.”
“There is no meaning… except”: Restricting the meaning of adherence
The next stage of the statement is even more explicit in its indication:
“There is no meaning to adherence to the Book except taking from it the knowledge and guidance it contains.”
Here, the construction “there is no meaning… except” is one of restriction: al-Taftazani defines the intended meaning of adherence to the Book as taking knowledge and guidance from it. Thus, in this context, “adherence” is not merely preserving or venerating the Qur’an, or having an emotional bond with it; rather, it is a relationship of knowledge and guidance: knowledge is taken from it, and its guidance is accepted.
This premise is immediately extended to the Ahl al-Bayt by the following very brief but decisive statement:
“And likewise with regard to the Ahl al-Bayt.”
These three words are one of the most important parts of al-Taftazani’s proof.
The «فاء» here conveys consequence: that is, the subsequent ruling is built upon the preceding premises. «كذا» also stands in place of a complete sentence: the same ruling applies to the Ahl al-Bayt as well. Consequently, by omitting verbal repetition, al-Taftazani applies to the Ahl al-Bayt the same meaning he established for holding fast to the Book—«الأخذ بما فيه من العلم والهداية» (“taking from it the knowledge and guidance it contains”).
His argument can be stated logically more or less as follows:
The Ahl al-Bayt have been paired with the Qur’an ← holding fast to both prevents misguidance ← holding fast to the Qur’an means taking knowledge and guidance ← therefore, holding fast to the Ahl al-Bayt also entails taking knowledge and guidance from them.
This is precisely the principle on which Mir Hamid Husain Hindi relies in the first argument.
The particular significance of this proof against Dehlavi
Here, it can no longer be said that the rule “the Ahl al-Bayt share with the Qur’an in its guidance-related status” is merely an argument devised by the author of *Abaqāt*. Al-Taftazani, the great Sunni theologian, himself argued from the pairing of the Ahl al-Bayt with the Qur’an that the two share in the meaning of adherence.
This evidence is particularly decisive in response to Dehlawi’s statement. Dehlawi says that being something to which one adheres does not necessarily establish leadership; but al-Taftazani does not leave the matter at the level of “being an abstract object of adherence.” He asks what adherence means in this very hadith, and answers: with regard to the Qur’an, “acquiring knowledge and guidance”; and because the Ahl al-Bayt are paired with the Qur’an, “the same applies to the Ahl al-Bayt.”
Therefore, even if the necessary connection between such scholarly and guidance-related authority and the “supreme imamate” is disputed at the next stage, Dehlawi’s statement that the hadith “has no bearing” at all on the claim of authority and leadership can no longer be maintained. This is because al-Taftazani understood the Ahl al-Bayt, within the hadith itself, to be a source from which the community acquires knowledge and guidance.
The Evidentiary Value of al-Taftazani’s Admission
The weight of this evidence is not limited to al-Taftazani’s scholarly renown. Its chief importance lies in the fact that here he does not formulate the final Imami conclusion; rather, he establishes, in his own words, one of the main premises of Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi’s argument. For this reason, citing him is a clear example of “binding the opponent by his own admission.”
More precisely, the author of *Abaqāt* does not say: “Al-Taftazani accepted the Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt on the basis of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn.” Such a claim goes beyond this statement. What the statement explicitly establishes is this:
In al-Taftazani’s view, just as adhering to the Qur’an means deriving knowledge and guidance from the Qur’an, adhering to the عترت, in keeping with the Prophet’s pairing of them, entails deriving knowledge and guidance from the عترت as well.
This acknowledgment is a powerful means of refuting the “absolute disconnection” claimed by Dehlawi.
The Central Point
The upshot of this evidence can be summarized in the article in one highlighted sentence:
Al-Taftazani not only accepts the guidance-bearing authority of the عترت, but also shows how to infer it: “قرنهم بكتاب الله” and then “فكذا في العترة” (“He paired them with the Book of God”; “and so it is with the عترت”). Thus, the عترت’s sharing with the Qur’an in its relation to guidance was explicitly affirmed by one of the greatest Sunni theologians before it was set forth by the author of عبقات.
6–3. Shihab al-Din Dawlatabadi in Hidayat al-Su‘ada
Brief introduction: Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad Dawlatābādī, a Sunni Indian jurist and theologian and the author of Hidāyat al-Suʿadāʾ; died in 849 AH.
The author of ʿAbaqāt quotes the following from him in explaining the purport of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things:
“One who is commanded to be followed does not become a follower in turn, and one whose leadership is urged does not become a follower. Every item of knowledge and every statement that indicates opposition to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is heresy and satanic.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 27; PDF: 38.
Translation: One whom people are commanded to follow does not, in that relationship, become their follower; and one whose imamate and leadership people are called upon to accept does not become the follower of others. Every item of knowledge and every statement that leads to opposition to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is heresy and satanic.
Analysis of the purport: from “following” to the structure of leadership
The significance of Dawlatabadi’s statement lies in the fact that it moves beyond expressing an ambiguous relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt and explains that relationship using two expressions that are explicitly concerned with guidance and authority:
“المأمور بمتابعته” “المندوب إلى إمامته”
The first expression makes following the subject of a command. “المأمور بمتابعته” means one whom others are commanded to follow. Thus, the relationship in question is not merely one of love, veneration, or observance of the rights of kinship; rather, it is a relationship in which one party is commanded to follow and the other is followed.
Dawlatabadi then reinforces this meaning with a more explicit expression:
“والمندوب إلى إمامته لا يصير مأموماً”
Here, the word “إمامته” (his imamate) enters Dawlatabadi’s formulation directly. The important point is that “المندوب إلى” should not be confused with the technical term “mandūb” in legal theory, meaning “recommended” or “supererogatory.” In this construction, it comes from the root *nadaba*, meaning to summon or invite someone to something. The meaning of the phrase is therefore that one whom the community has been called upon to accept as its imam and leader does not, within that same structure, become the follower (*maʾmūm*) of someone else.
The Literary Contrast Between “One Followed/Follower” and “Imam/One Led in Prayer”
Al-Dawlatabadi’s phrasing is also carefully crafted from a literary standpoint. He constructs two parallel sentences:
المأمور بمتابعته ← لا يصير تبعاً المندوب إلى إمامته ← لا يصير مأموماً
In the first sentence, the relation of “following” is examined against its opposite, namely, “becoming a follower”; in the second, “leading in prayer” is set against “being led in prayer.” This contrast is not merely a play on words. Al-Dawlatabadi seeks to show the inversion of status to be irrational: someone whom people are commanded to follow in a relation of guidance cannot, in that same relation, be subordinate to those who are commanded to follow him.
Put logically, his argument can be reconstructed as follows:
Command to follow a person ← establishment of that person’s status as the one followed ← incompatibility with that person’s being a follower in the same respect.
And in the second formulation:
Calling people to the imamate of a person → establishing his position as leader → incompatible with his being a follower in that same respect.
The qualification “in that same respect” is essential to the analysis, because the point is not that a person whose obedience is obligatory can never learn anything from anyone in any subject, or be subordinate to another in any ordinary matter. The discussion concerns the very domain in which the community has been called to follow him and recognize his imamate.
The Significance of “Imāmatuhu” in Response to Dahlawī’s Claim
This evidence goes a step further than some of the earlier reports. Ṭībī spoke of “guidance,” and Taftāzānī of “acquiring knowledge and guidance”; but Dawlatābādī, alongside “following,” explicitly uses the word “imāmatuhu” (“his imamate”).
For this reason, this evidence carries particular weight in critiquing Dahlawī’s statement that the hadith is fundamentally unrelated to “the supreme leadership.” One cannot claim that the hadith has no “connection whatsoever” with the question of leadership while, at the same time, a Sunni scholar, in explaining its meaning, speaks of someone whom the people have been called to follow and recognize as their imam.
He thus frames the relationship between the Ahl al-Bayt and the community as that of the followed and the follower, and even of the imam and the one praying behind him.
The Final Sentence and the Severity of the Obligation
Dawlatabadi then adds:
“كل علم وكل قول دلّ على مخالفة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم زندقة وشيطنة.”
This sentence is very forceful in tone, but its role must be understood correctly. The main weight of the argument lies in the preceding two sentences; the final sentence chiefly expresses the binding force of the Prophet’s command and the reprehensibility of opposing it. That is, if the Prophet had directed people to follow certain persons and recognize their leadership, then, in Dawlatabadi’s view, a theory whose consequence is to set this command aside is unacceptable.
The Evidentiary Value of This Testimony
In response to Dehlavi, this testimony does not merely say that the *‘itra* are “beloved” or “respected”; rather, it introduces two words directly related to the structure of authority:
“Following them” (*mutāba‘atuhu*) and “their imamate” (*imāmatuhu*).
Accordingly, its conclusion may be condensed as follows:
Dawlatabadi understands the relationship in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things as having, on one side, the community’s duty to follow, and on the other, the imamate of those who are followed. Therefore, Dehlavi’s claim that the hadith is wholly unrelated to the question of leadership is incompatible not only with the account given by the author of *‘Abaqāt*, but also with the explicit statement of a scholar from Dehlavi’s own tradition.
Within the chain of evidence for the first aspect, this testimony is one of the clearest instances of an opponent acknowledging a premise close to the point at issue.
6.4. Husayn Wa‘iz Kashifi: From Repeating the Prophet’s Counsel to the “Following” of the Ahl al-Bayt
Brief introduction: Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Vāʿiẓ Kāshifī, a renowned Persian-writing Khorasani exegete and preacher and the author of Mawāhib-i ʿAliyya, known as Tafsīr-i Ḥusaynī; died around 910 AH. The author of ʿAbaqāt cites his words among the evidence for this interpretation.
After explaining the Prophetic phrase “أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللهَ في أهل بيتي” (“I remind you of God concerning my Ahl al-Bayt”), Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn al-Hindī quotes Kāshifī as follows:
“In the repetition of these words three times, clear proof is established of the veneration of the Ahl al-Bayt, love for them, and following them.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 27; PDF: 38.
Translation and paraphrase: The Prophet’s threefold repetition of his injunction concerning the Ahl al-Bayt is clear proof of the duty to venerate them, love them, and follow them.
Analysis of the indication: “Following” alongside veneration and love
The importance of this phrase lies in the fact that Kāshifī does not reduce the substance of the Prophet’s instruction concerning the Ahl al-Bayt to an emotional duty. He places three terms side by side:
Reverence — love — following
The first two terms may refer to the standing and respect of, and emotional bond with, the Ahl al-Bayt; but the third term, namely “following,” is of a different nature. Following takes place when a person makes another the one followed in his speech, conduct, or guidance, and aligns his own path with that person. Thus, the inclusion of “following” alongside “reverence” and “love” prevents the entire substance of the Prophet’s instruction from being reduced to mere affection and veneration.
More precisely, if Kāshifī’s sole aim had been to establish the obligation of respect and love, mentioning those two terms would have sufficed to express his point. The addition of “following them” shows that, in his view, the community’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt also has a practical and guiding dimension.
The Significance of Repetition Three Times
Kāshifī derives this conclusion from the threefold repetition of the Prophet’s phrase. Repetition here does not, in itself, introduce new content; rather, from a rhetorical perspective, it emphasizes the importance of the subject and the speaker’s strong concern for it. Kāshifī’s argument therefore has two levels: first, the Prophet’s instruction concerning the Ahl al-Bayt itself; and second, its repetition, which shows that this instruction is not a marginal or merely ceremonial matter.
One point that must be preserved precisely in the article is that Kashifi’s statement is not a direct explanation of the wording “as long as you hold fast to them both” (ما إن تمسكتم بهما); rather, it appears in his explanation of the sentence “I remind you before God concerning my Ahl al-Bayt” (أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي). Nevertheless, the author of ʿAbaqāt cites it under the first argument, because Kashifi has inferred “following” the Ahl al-Bayt from this very part of the collection of the hadith’s wordings.
How This Evidence Relates to Dahlawi’s Claim
The significance of this report in the debate with Dahlawi is clear. Dahlawi seeks to detach the hadith from any connection with the question of the leadership and authority of the Ahl al-Bayt. Kashifi, however, infers from the Prophet’s repeated exhortation not only “reverence” and “love,” but also “following.”
This evidence alone does not establish all the implications of the Imamate. For the first argument, however, it is enough to show that one well-known non-Imami exegete and preacher did not limit the community’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt to respect and love alone.
The substance of this evidence can be stated concisely as follows:
In Kashifi’s exegesis, the Ahl al-Bayt are not merely the objects of love and reverence; “following” is placed alongside those two as well. This one word rules out reducing the Prophet’s exhortation to a purely emotional relationship and pushes Dahlawi’s absolute denial back another step.
6–5. Nūr al-Dīn al-Samhūdī in *Jawāhir al-ʿIqdain*: From “Mines of Knowledge” to Following, Holding Fast, and Learning
Brief introduction: Nūr al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Samhūdī, a Shāfiʿī hadith scholar and jurist, and one of the most prominent historians of Medina; author of works including *Wafāʾ al-Wafā bi-Akhbār Dār al-Muṣṭafā* and *Jawāhir al-ʿIqdain*; died in 911 AH.
The author of *ʿAbaqāt* quotes al-Samhūdī as follows:
“The upshot is that, since each of the Magnificent Qur’an and the Pure Household is a mine of divinely bestowed sciences, secrets, precious religious wisdom, and treasuries of their subtleties and means of attaining their truths, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) called them both the Two Weighty Things. This is borne out by his urging, in some of the previously mentioned transmission routes, that people follow, hold fast to, and learn from his Household.”
*ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār*, vol. 20, p. 27; PDF: 38.
Translation: The upshot is that, since each of the Magnificent Qur’an and the Pure Household is a mine of divinely bestowed sciences, secrets, precious religious wisdom, treasuries of its subtleties, and a means of attaining its truths, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) applied the designation “the Two Weighty Things” to them both. This meaning is supported by his urging, in some of the previously mentioned transmission routes, that people follow, hold fast to, and learn from his Household.
Semantic Analysis: “Each of the Qur’an … and the Ahl al-Bayt”; Knowledge as a Shared Attribute of the Two Weighty Matters
Al-Samhudi’s statement is important evidence for the first interpretation, because before explaining the community’s duty, he first clarifies the basis of the Ahl al-Bayt’s standing. The structure of his phrase is noteworthy:
“Each of the Noble Qur’an and the Pure Ahl al-Bayt was a repository…”
The expression “each of” indicates that the attribute “repository” is ascribed independently to each of the two parties—not that only the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt together, as a composite whole, are repositories of knowledge. Accordingly, in al-Samhudi’s account:
The Qur’an is a repository of knowledge and guidance; the Ahl al-Bayt, too, are a repository of knowledge and religious truths.
This point is fundamentally important to the first interpretation, because it takes the Ahl al-Bayt beyond the status of a mere object of love and respect and places them in the position of a community-wide source of knowledge.
The Causal Relationship Between “Being a Source of Knowledge” and “the Two Weighty Things”
The construction “لَمّا ... أطلق” (“since … he called”) also indicates a causal relationship. Samhudi explains that, by virtue of this scholarly and epistemic standing of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s family, the Prophet applied the title “the Two Weighty Things” to them:
“أطلق صلى الله عليه وسلم عليهما الثقلين”
The dual pronoun “عليهما” (“upon them both”) also makes the Qur’an and the Prophet’s family jointly the referents of this naming. Of course, this pairing should not, without evidence, lead one to conclude that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s family are entirely equal in every attribute and at every rank. The clear import of the statement is narrower, yet very important: Samhudi affirms for both a shared standing as authorities in knowledge and as possessors of religious sciences and truths.
This point is precisely what matters for the present dispute.
Three Decisive Words: “الاقتداء، التمسك، التعلّم”
The strongest part of al-Samhudi’s statement comes at the end of the passage:
“To follow, adhere to, and learn from the members of his household.”
These three expressions represent three dimensions of the community’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt. The first,
“al-iqtida’” (following as an example) concerns practical following. Following as an example is different from mere veneration: one who follows another as an example makes that person a model and a guide in their conduct and orientation.
“al-tamassuk” (adherence) conveys a bond more enduring than mere respect: holding fast and remaining committed to that to which guidance and salvation are tied.
And clearest of all in the domain of scholarly authority is:
“Learning from his Household”
That is, learning from the Ahl al-Bayt.
The preposition “from” in “learning from” specifies the source from which knowledge is acquired. In this expression, the Ahl al-Bayt are not presented merely as possessors of scholarly virtue; rather, when learning, the community must receive knowledge from them. Thus, al-Samhudi has also framed the scholarly relationship clearly and in one direction: the Ahl al-Bayt occupy the position of teachers, and the community the position of learners.
The Threefold Link Between Knowledge, Following, and Adherence
The distinctive feature of al-Samhudi’s statement is that its two parts interpret one another. In the first part, he describes the Itra as the “repository of knowledge”; in the second, he shows the practical effect of this status:
The Itra’s being the repository of knowledge and religious wisdom ← learning from them ← following them ← adhering to them.
Therefore, “holding fast” in this expression is not an empty concept that can be reduced to love. Al-Samhudi himself placed it in a context in which learning from the Ahl al-Bayt and following their example are two clear indicators for understanding the meaning of holding fast.
This point directly answers Dehlawi’s method of abstracting the concept of “that to which one holds fast” from the context of the hadith. If the question is merely, “Is everything one holds fast to a leader?” the answer may be no; but al-Samhudi shows what status that to which one holds fast has in this particular hadith: the Ahl al-Bayt, who are the “repository of knowledge,” must be learned from, followed as an example, and held fast to.
The Weight of This Evidence in Critiquing Dehlawi
This evidence is of great value to Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi because al-Samhudi did not use merely one ambiguous word. His three expressions together make almost any minimal, purely affective interpretation difficult to sustain:
Following as an example — Holding fast — Learning
After accepting these three terms, one may still discuss how the Ahl al-Bayt’s scholarly and guiding authority leads to all the dimensions of the Imamate envisioned by the Imami Shia; but that is another stage. What al-Samhudi’s statement directly establishes against Dehlawi is that, in the view of a prominent Shafi‘i hadith scholar and jurist, the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things conveys a clear relationship of following as an example, holding fast, and acquiring knowledge from the Ahl al-Bayt.
Thus, the upshot of the *Ṣāḥib-i ʿAbaqāt*’s argument against Samhūdī may be summarized as follows:
When Samhūdī calls the Prophet’s family, alongside the Qur’an, “a repository of knowledge,” and regards the Prophet as urging the community to “follow, hold fast to, and learn from” the Ahl al-Bayt, Dahlawī’s claim that the hadith has no connection whatsoever to the authority and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt can no longer be defended as a denial; for the hadith tradition of Ahl al-Sunnah itself accords the Prophet’s family a scholarly and guiding standing, and a standing worthy of emulation.
6.6. Faḍl Allāh ibn Rūzbihān Khunjī Shīrāzī: An Admission of the Necessity of Following the Ahl al-Bayt by a Staunch Opponent of the Imāmiyya
Brief introduction: Faḍl Allāh ibn Rūzbihān Khunjī Shīrāzī was a renowned Sunni theologian and writer and an outspoken opponent of the Imāmiyya. His best-known work in his dispute with the Imāmiyya is *Ibṭāl Nahj al-Bāṭil*. He died in 927 AH. The importance of citing him in this discussion lies, beyond his scholarly standing, in the fact that the statement cited comes from a scholar who cannot be accused of sympathizing with Imāmī principles.
The Ṣāḥib-i ʿAbaqāt quotes his words as follows:
“We should believe that the Prophet’s family—may God bless him and grant him peace—are worthy of veneration and must be followed. I say: As for venerating the Prophet’s family—may God bless him and grant him peace—it is an obligatory belief, in light of the sound hadiths transmitted on this subject. Among them is what the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—said in his sermon during the Farewell Pilgrimage: ‘O people! I am leaving among you the two weighty things: the Book of God and my family, the Ahl al-Bayt. If you hold fast to both, you will never go astray after me.’ And so on. In another hadith, he said: ‘I remind you of God concerning my Ahl al-Bayt’; he repeated these words three times. From this it is understood that venerating and loving them is obligatory and that their rights must be observed. And since he also said that if people hold fast to the Ahl al-Bayt, they will never go astray, he thus commanded that they be followed.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 28; PDF: 39.
Translation and paraphrase: The Prophet’s family must be honored and followed. Sound hadiths, including the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, indicate the obligation to love the Ahl al-Bayt and uphold their rights. Since the Prophet linked deliverance from misguidance to holding fast to the Ahl al-Bayt, this statement yields an instruction to follow them.
Semantic Analysis: An Explicit Move from “Reverence” to “Following”
The value of this statement lies in Ibn Rūzbehān’s having clearly distinguished two domains. He does not stop at “reverence” and “love”; rather, from the outset he says:
“They must be honored and followed.”
This combination is highly telling. “Reverence” may concern status and respect, whereas “following” has a practical, guidance-oriented character. Following means placing another person in the position of a leader and shaping one’s conduct according to that person’s path and way. Thus, in Ibn Rūzbehān’s interpretation, the community’s duty toward the Ahl al-Bayt is not limited to honoring them; following them, too, is part of what the hadith conveys.
Even more important than the opening expression is the argument he himself offers for this conclusion:
“Since he stated that if they hold fast to the Ahl al-Bayt, they will never go astray, he therefore commanded them to follow them.”
This sentence makes Ibn-Ruzbihan’s understanding of the relationship between holding fast, the negation of misguidance, and following them clear. He does not reduce “holding fast to the Ahl al-Bayt” to an emotional attachment or showing respect; rather, from the fact that holding fast to them is presented as preventing misguidance, he concludes that the Prophet commanded the community to follow them.
يمكن إعادة بناء بنية استدلاله على النحو الآتي:
التمسّك بأهل البيت ← العصمة من الضلال ← الاقتداء بأهل البيت.
Accordingly, “lan tadillu” (“you will not go astray”) serves in his understanding as evidence that holding fast is an act of guidance. That by following which the community remains safe from misguidance is not merely something deserving respect; in matters of guidance, it is a guide and an example to follow.
The Exceptional Significance of This Testimony in the Rule of Binding the Opponent
Among the proofs for the first aspect, Ibn Rawzabhan’s statement carries particular argumentative weight, for he is not merely a non-Imami scholar, but a well-known author who wrote against the Imamiyya. Thus, when such a figure says that the Ahl al-Bayt are “those whom one must follow” and infers “a command to follow” from the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, the possibility of attributing this meaning to Shi‘i presuppositions is reduced to a minimum.
Here the rule of binding the opponent appears in its clearest form. Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi does not cite Ibn Rawzabhan to prove the entire theory of Imamate; rather, he takes a specific premise from him: the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things indicates that one should follow the Ahl al-Bayt.
This distinction is essential. Ibn Rawzabhan’s statement should not be taken to mean that he accepted the entire Imami theory regarding Imamate, infallibility, or the caliphate. What he did accept, and what is decisive for criticizing Dehlavi, is the principle of following the Ahl al-Bayt for guidance.
And this alone makes Dehlavi’s categorical denial highly vulnerable.
Dehlavi says that the hadith “has no bearing” on the issue of leadership and Imamate; but Ibn Rawzabhan—even with his well-known stance of opposition to the Imamiyya—draws the following conclusion from this very hadith:
“So he commanded them to follow them.”
Here, the dispute is no longer between the “Shi‘i interpretation” and the “Sunni interpretation”; rather, Dehlavi’s statement is being set against the understanding of one of the Imamiya’s most staunch opponents.
A Clear Instance of “Virtue Is What the Enemies Attest To”
If the well-known saying “Virtue is what the enemies attest to” can be invoked in this respect, this case is one of its clearest instances. Ibn Ruzbihan’s testimony is precisely valuable because the issuance of such an interpretation from him runs counter to expectations of partisanship. Someone who has himself written in criticism of the foundations of the Imamiya cannot easily be accused of deriving “following the Ahl al-Bayt” from the hadith under the influence of Imami presuppositions.
Therefore, the value of this testimony can be summarized in one concise proposition:
If even Ibn Ruzbihan, an opponent of the Imamiya, understands the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things as a command to “follow the Ahl al-Bayt,” then the hadith’s indication of their being followed and serving as a source of guidance cannot be dismissed as “Shi‘i interpretation”; and Dehlavi’s claim that the hadith is wholly unrelated to the question of leadership is plainly undermined by such an admission.
6–7. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī in al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah
Brief introduction: Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī al-Makkī, a prominent Shāfiʿī jurist and hadith scholar and author of al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah, an explicit work refuting Shiʿi currents; died: 974 AH.
“Note: The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, called the Qur’an and his ʿitrah—written with the upper tāʾ, meaning family, descendants, and close kin—the Two Weighty Things, because weighty things are anything precious, valuable, and safeguarded. These two are likewise so, for each is a repository of divinely bestowed knowledge, secrets, lofty wisdom, and religious rulings. For this reason, he, peace and blessings be upon him, urged following them, holding fast to them, and learning from them.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 28; PDF: 39.
Translation: Note: The Messenger of God called the Qur’an and his ʿitrah—meaning family, descendants, and close kin—the Two Weighty Things, because weightiness denotes anything precious, valuable, and safeguarded. These two are likewise so, for each is a repository of divinely bestowed knowledge, secrets, lofty wisdom, and religious rulings. For this reason, the Prophet encouraged following them, holding fast to them, and learning from them.
Analysis: This testimony is also distinguished as an “admission by an opponent,” since al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah is not a work sympathetic to the Imāmiyyah. Nevertheless, Ibn Ḥajar speaks of three levels of relationship: following, holding fast, and learning. This triad places the ʿitrah in the position of a source of knowledge and a model for conduct. Thus, an absolute denial of any connection between hadith and authority or leadership is inconsistent with his own explanation.
6–8. Kamal al-Din Jahromi in *Barāhīn-e Qāṭeʿa*
Brief introduction: Kamal al-Din Jahromi, translator and commentator of the Persian *al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqa* and author of *Barāhīn-e Qāṭeʿa*; his year of death could not be reliably established in the biographical sources examined.
“Know that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, called the Qur’an and his ʿitra—meaning his family, descendants, and clan—the two weighty things, because the weighty thing of anything is precious, of great standing, and protected. The Qur’an and the pure ʿitra have this quality, for each of them is a repository of religious knowledge and a source of the secrets of practical wisdom and religious rulings. Therefore, he urged following them, holding fast to them, and learning from them ... Know also that among the People of the House, those whom people are urged to follow and hold fast to are only those who are learned and have knowledge of the Book of God and the Prophet’s Sunna, may blessings be upon him. These are the specific group who do not part from the Book of God until they come to the Pond.”
*ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār*, vol. 20, p. 28; PDF: 39.
Translation: Jahromi says that the pure ʿitra is a repository of religious knowledge and religious rulings, and for this reason the Prophet urged following them, holding fast to them, and learning from them; those who exemplify this following are the learned and knowledgeable members of the People of the House, who do not part from the Book.
Analysis: Jahromi’s significant addition is to restrict the referent of “the People of the House to be followed” to those learned in and knowledgeable about the Book and the Sunna. This restriction does not negate the principle of following them; rather, it transforms it from a genealogical designation into a designation of knowledge and guidance. For the discussion of Dehlavi, this much suffices to show that in the hadith the ʿitra is not merely an object of honor.
6–9. Mulla Ali al-Qari in Sharh al-Shifa
Brief introduction: Nur al-Din Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Harawi was one of the great Hanafi hadith scholars and jurists, and the author of Mirqat al-Mafatih and Sharh al-Shifa; died: 1014 AH.
“Holding fast to the Qur’an means adhering to its commands and prohibitions and believing in all that it contains and in its truth. Holding fast to his ‘itrah means loving them and following their way of life.”
‘Abaqat al-Anwar, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: Holding fast to the Qur’an means practical adherence to its commands and prohibitions, and belief in all its contents and its truth; holding fast to the ‘itrah means loving them and following their way of life.
Analysis: Mulla Ali al-Qari does not leave “love” on its own; he coordinates it with “following their way of life.” Thus, the semantic structure of holding fast has two components: inward inclination and practical following. Removing the second component while retaining only love is to fragment the meaning of this very commentary.
6–10. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī in Fayḍ al-Qadīr
Brief introduction: ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī was an Egyptian Shafiʿi hadith scholar and jurist, and the author of Fayḍ al-Qadīr, a commentary on al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr; he died in 1031 AH.
“That is, if you comply with the commands of His Book, refrain from its prohibitions, are guided by the guidance of my kindred, and follow their conduct, you will be guided and will not go astray.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: That is, if you submit to the commands of God’s Book and refrain from its prohibitions, and are guided by the guidance of my kindred and follow their conduct, you will be guided and will not go astray.
Analysis: Al-Munāwī breaks down the hadith’s conditional relationship into four actions: complying with the Book’s commands, refraining from its prohibitions, being guided by the guidance of the kindred, and following their conduct. The latter two components clearly constitute “following.” As a result, the negation of misguidance is made dependent on a practical relationship with the kindred.
6–11. Al-Munawi in *Al-Taysir bi-Sharh al-Jami al-Saghir*
Brief introduction: The same Abd al-Ra’uf al-Munawi, this time in his more concise work *Al-Taysir bi-Sharh al-Jami al-Saghir*.
“That is: If you act according to the Qur’an and follow the guidance of my learned Ahl al-Bayt, you will not go astray.”
*‘Abaqat al-Anwar*, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: That is, if you act according to the Qur’an and find guidance in the guidance of my learned Ahl al-Bayt, you will not go astray.
Analysis: In this rendering, the parallel is even more concise: “acting according to the Qur’an” is placed alongside “following the guidance of the Ahl al-Bayt,” and their shared result is “you will not go astray.” The syntactic balance between the two parts reinforces their balance as sources of guidance within the sentence.
6–12. Shihāb al-Dīn al-Khafājī in Nasīm al-Riyāḍ
Brief introduction: Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad al-Khafājī al-Miṣrī was a judge, man of letters, and Ḥanafī jurist, and the author of Nasīm al-Riyāḍ fī Sharḥ Shifāʾ al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ; died: 1069 AH.
“So consider how you will act toward the two after me; that is, after my death, consider your conduct with respect to the Book of God, your following of my Household, and your care for and kindness toward them after me. For whatever gladdens them gladdens me, and whatever grieves them grieves me.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: So consider how you will act toward the two after me; that is, after my death, consider your conduct with respect to the Book of God, your following of my Household, and your care for and kindness toward them. For whatever gladdens them gladdens me, and whatever grieves them grieves me.
Analysis: Al-Khafājī divides “how you will act toward the two” into two branches: “your conduct with respect to the Book of God” and “your following of my Household.” This explanatory contrast is among the clearest evidence that, in the understanding of a Sunni commentator, the community’s duty toward the second of the Two Weighty Things is “following.” This is precisely contrary to the direction al-Dihlawī needs in order to portray the hadith as unrelated to religious leadership.
6–13. ʿAlī ʿAzīzī in al-Sirāj al-Munīr: The Syntax of the Hadith and the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt Sharing the Ruling on Following Them
Brief introduction: ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad ʿAzīzī Būlāqī al-Shāfiʿī was a hadith scholar, a commentator on al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, and the author of al-Sirāj al-Munīr bi-Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr. He died in 1070 AH.
The author of ʿAbaqāt quotes ʿAzīzī’s syntactic commentary on one of the expressions in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things as follows:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of God”—with «كتاب الله» in the accusative, as an apposition or explicative substitute. “A rope”—in the nominative, as the predicate of an omitted subject; that is, “It is an extended rope.” «ما» is extra, in the phrase “between heaven and earth.” “And my ʿitra”—coordinated with “the Book of God.” “The people of my household”—it may be nominative or accusative; that is, “I mean” or “they are.” What is meant by them is the scholars among them; that is, I urge you to follow them and not oppose the two.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: “I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of God.” «كتابَ الله» is in the accusative and functions as an apposition or explicative substitute for «خليفتين». «حبلٌ» is in the nominative, with «هو حبلٌ ممدود» understood: “It is an extended rope.” The «ما» in the phrase «ما بين السماء والأرض» is extra. «وعترتي» is coordinated with «كتاب الله». «أهل بيتي» may be accusative—with «أعني أهل بيتي» understood—or nominative—with «هم أهل بيتي» understood. Those meant are the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt; that is: I urge you to follow them; do not oppose the two.
First syntactic analysis: “Khalīfatayn” and sentence structure
The analysis of this evidence should begin at the start of the sentence:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you two successors.”
“Tārik” is an active participle and the predicate of “inna”; in this construction, it performs the action of its verb. For this reason, “khalīfatayn” is the object of the active participle “tārik” and is in the accusative. Therefore, it is better to consider “khalīfatayn” the object of the active participle, not a “second object.”
The dual form in “khalīfatayn,” before its referents are introduced, indicates the existence of two individuals under a shared designation. The hadith then elaborates on this indefinite designation:
“The Book of God … and my family.”
Therefore, the sentence is constructed syntactically and semantically as follows:
خليفتين ← كتاب الله + عترتي
The important point is not that the dual form by itself makes all rulings concerning the two sides equal; such a conclusion cannot be derived from syntax alone. The more certain indication is that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s family (ʿitra) both enter the sentence structure under the single designation “خليفتين” (“two successors”), and both are governed by the act of “leaving [them] among the community.”
“كتاب الله”: From the Generality of “خليفتين” to the Specification of Its Referent
ʿAzīzī states explicitly:
«كتاب الله، بالنصب؛ بدلاً أو عطف بيان»
“The Book of God” is in the accusative because, according to his analysis, it is either an apposition to “two successors” or an explicative apposition to it. Under either possibility, the phrase’s principal function is the same: to interpret and specify the referent of the general designation “two successors.”
Then he says:
“And my ‘itrah’ (progeny) is coordinated with the Book of God.”
This explicit grammatical statement is one of the most important parts of the evidence. “My ‘itrah’” is coordinated with “the Book of God” precisely by the coordinating conjunction “and.” In Arabic grammar, a coordinated element shares with its antecedent the governing word and the syntactic rule associated with that governor. Therefore, if “the Book of God” is one of the two referents of the designation “two successors,” then “my ‘itrah’,” by virtue of coordination, also occupies that same syntactic position and constitutes the second referent of that designation.
The structure can therefore be represented as follows:
two successors ↳ the Book of God ↳ and my ‘itrah’
This point is very precise: coordination, in and of itself, does not establish equality between the Qur’an and the ‘itrah in all attributes and degrees; however, it does not allow either of the two parties to be excluded, without supporting evidence, from the shared ruling that the sentence’s structure establishes for both.
“A stretched rope”; an intervening or explanatory sentence, not a break in the coordination structure
Azizi considers “ḥabl” nominative and supplies the implied wording:
“It is a stretched rope.”
In light of this implied wording, “ḥablun” is the predicate of the omitted subject “huwa,” forming an explanatory sentence about the Book of God. Thus, an explanation about the Qur’an comes between “the Book of God” and “my ‘itrah,” but this explanation does not eliminate the syntactic coordination between them; as Azizi himself explicitly says afterward:
“And my ‘itrah is coordinated with the Book of God.”
Therefore, the existence of a distinctive attribute for the Qur’an in the middle of the sentence cannot be taken as evidence that the Ahl al-Bayt fall outside the hadith’s main structure. The Qur’an may have attributes particular to it while the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt share in the ruling intended by the sentence.
“Ahl Baytī”: Two Grammatical Possibilities with One Interpretive Result
Azizi says regarding “Ahl Baytī”:
“It may be in the nominative or accusative; that is, ‘I mean’ or ‘they are.’”
If it is in the accusative, the implied wording is:
“I mean my Ahl al-Bayt.”
That is, “I mean by my kindred my Ahl al-Bayt.” In this case, the accusative is understood as governed by the explanatory verb “أعني” (I mean).
If it is nominative, the implied wording is:
“هم أهلُ بيتي”
That is, “They are my Ahl al-Bayt.”
In both analyses, the phrase serves the same function: identifying “my kindred” and removing any ambiguity about it. The difference in grammatical case does not change the identity of the referent.
The Culmination of the Commentary: “أحثكم على اتباعهم”
After all these syntactic analyses, ʿAzīzī reveals his interpretive conclusion:
“أي: أحثّكم على اتباعهم”
That is:
“I urge you to follow them.”
This sentence is very important for the first argument of the author of ʿAbaqāt, because it shows that ʿAzīzī’s syntactic analysis ultimately leads to a specific guidance-oriented conclusion: following the Ahl al-Bayt .
Thus, syntax here is not merely the arrangement of the inflectional endings of words; from the structure of the hadith, ʿAzīzī understands the community’s practical relationship with the ʿItra.
“Do Not Oppose Them”: The Dual Pronoun’s Referent and the Unity of the Ruling
From a grammatical perspective, perhaps the most important subtlety lies at the end of the phrase:
“Do not oppose them.”
The pronoun “هما” is dual and refers back to the two weighty things: the Book of God and the ‘Itra. The verb “تخالفوا” is also governed by a prohibition; that is:
Do not oppose the two of them.
This dual pronoun is highly significant in terms of what it indicates. ‘Azizi first says, when speaking of members of the Ahl al-Bayt:
“Following them”
In which the plural pronoun “them” refers to the Ahl al-Bayt—and, according to his explanation, their scholars. Then, in “do not oppose the two,” it returns to the hadith’s original dual structure, using a dual pronoun.
This change in pronoun is entirely meaningful:
“them” ← the individuals of the Ahl al-Bayt, whom one must follow; “the two” ← the Qur’an and the ‘itra, as the two weighty things, opposition to both of which is forbidden.
Thus, the end of the statement revives the hadith’s initial structure: the Qur’an and the ‘itra are placed under a shared prohibition.
The Implication of “Prohibition of Opposition”
“Following” and “not opposing” are two sides of one guiding relationship. When the speaker says:
“I urge you to follow them.”
he expresses the relationship affirmatively; and with:
“Do not oppose them.”
he affirms that same relationship from the negative side.
In logical terms:
Following the ‘Itrah is required ← مخالفت با دو ثقل ممنوع است.
It is clear from this set of statements that, in ʿAzīzī’s understanding, the ‘Itrah cannot be merely an object of love and veneration. That which the community has been called upon to follow, and forbidden to oppose, has a guiding and exemplary role in the structure of the hadith.
The Value of This Evidence in Refuting Dehlawī
This quotation gives Sayyid Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Hindī’s argument an advantage beyond that of many earlier pieces of evidence, because ʿAzīzī not only states the conclusion of “following,” but also lays out the syntactic analysis before the reader:
“Khalīfatayn” is a dual-form designation; “Kitāb Allāh” explains it; “wa-ʿitratī” is coordinated with “Kitāb Allāh”; “Ahl baytī” explains the identity of the ‘Itrah; and, finally, the hadith is interpreted as “following them” (ittibāʿahum) and “do not oppose the two of them” (lā tuḵālifūhumā).
Thus, the response to Dehlawī is no longer merely that “the author of ʿAbaqāt understood it this way.” A Shāfiʿī commentator himself arrives, through syntactic coordination, at a shared structure for the two weighty things, and holds that the hadith’s conclusion is following the Ahl al-Bayt and not opposing the Qur’an and the ‘Itrah.
The technical conclusion of this evidence can be highlighted in one statement:
Azizi closes off, on the basis of the hadith’s own syntax, any way of removing the Ahl al-Bayt from the guidance relationship: “My kindred” (ʿitrati) is coordinated with “the Book of God” and is one of the two referents of “two successors”; then the dual pronoun in “do not oppose them both” gathers both under a single prohibition against opposition. Thus, the inclusion of the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt under this ruling is not an external theological addition, but part of the interpretive syntactic structure presented by this Sunni commentator himself.
6–14. Muhammad al-Zurqani in his commentary on al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya
Brief introduction: Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Baqi al-Zurqani al-Maliki, a hadith scholar and renowned commentator on al-Sira, and author of Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya; died: 1122 AH.
“That is, if you carry out the commands of the Book of God, refrain from its prohibitions, follow the guidance of my kindred, and emulate their conduct, you will be guided and will not go astray. He reinforced that bequest by saying: ‘Consider how you will succeed me with regard to them both after my death: will you follow them and gladden me, or not, and so grieve me?’”
ʿAbaqat al-Anwar, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: That is, if you submit to the commands of the Book of God, refrain from its prohibitions, follow the guidance of my عترت, and emulate their conduct, you will be guided and will not go astray. He emphasized that testament with these words: So consider, after my death, how you honor my succession concerning these two: will you follow them and thus gladden me, or not, and thus grieve me?
Analysis: In the second part, al-Zurqānī explains “فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما” with the verb “تتبعونهما.” This explicit statement is very important: the dual pronoun shows that “following” applies to both Weighty Things. Thus, in the words of a Mālikī commentator himself, the required conduct toward the عترت is “following,” not mere respect.
6–15. Al-Zurqānī on the Testament and Emulation
Brief introduction: The same Muḥammad al-Zurqānī; this passage draws a precise distinction between “general beneficence” and “scholarly emulation.”
“فالوصيّة ببرّ آل البيت على الإطلاق، وأمّا الاقتداء فإنّما يكون بالعلماء العاملين منهم إذ هم الذين لا يفارقون القرآن.”
ʿIqbāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 29; PDF: 40.
Translation: The injunction to treat the Ahl al-Bayt well is unrestricted; following them, however, is limited to those among them who are learned and act upon their knowledge, for they are the ones who do not part from the Qur’an.
Analysis: This distinction is decisive for the present discussion. Al-Zurqani himself differentiates between two levels: “kindness” toward all the Ahl al-Bayt and “following” their learned members who act upon their knowledge. Thus, one cannot say that everything in the hadith concerning the Ahl al-Bayt comes down only to respect and love; he explicitly recognizes an independent dimension of following.
6–16. Muhammad Badakhshi in Miftah al-Naja
Brief introduction: Mirza Muhammad ibn Muʿtamad Khan Badakhshi, a hadith scholar, collector of accounts of the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt, and author of Miftah al-Naja; bibliographical sources record his death as 1126 AH, while some catalogues give approximately 1150 AH.
“He called the Qur’an and his progeny the two weighty things, because a weighty thing is anything precious, valuable, and protected; and these two are likewise so, since each of them is a source of religious sciences, secrets, sublime wisdom, and legal rulings. For this reason, may God bless him and grant him peace urged following them and holding fast to them.”
ʿAbaqat al-Anwar, vol. 20, pp. 29–30; PDF: 40–41.
Translation: He called the Quran and his Ahl al-Bayt the Two Weighty Things, because the weight of anything is its precious, valuable, and safeguarded nature. These two are likewise, since each is a repository of religious sciences, secrets, exalted wisdom, and legal rulings. For this reason, the Prophet encouraged following and adhering to them both.
Analysis: Badakhshi preserves the dual pronoun “bihimā” in “following and adhering to them both.” The result is that following and adherence constitute a ruling shared by the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt. This wording is very direct evidence for the claim of the first aspect.
6–17. ولي الله لكهنوي in Mirʾāt al-Muʾminīn
Brief introduction: Wali Allah ibn Habib Allah Lakhnawi, a Sunni scholar in India and author of Mirʾāt al-Muʾminīn; died: 1270 AH. “Perhaps the reason for calling the Book of Allah and the pure Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the Two Weighty Things is that thaqal, with the three-dotted thāʾ vowelled with fatḥa, means in the lexicon a precious, pure, and safeguarded thing. Undoubtedly, both are protected, pure, safeguarded, and precious, for they are the repository of religious sciences and the storehouse of secrets of wisdom, knowledge, and religious law. This is what prompted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, to urge people to follow them, adhere to them, and learn from them.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 30; PDF: 41.
Translation: Lakhnawi says that the Quran and the Ahl al-Bayt are both precious, protected, and safeguarded; and because they are a repository of religious sciences and secrets, the Prophet urged people to follow them, adhere to them, and learn from them.
Analysis: The concentration of the three words “following, holding fast, and learning” repeats the same pattern previously seen in al-Samhudi and Ibn Hajar. Its inductive significance lies in this independent recurrence: the guidance-bearing meaning of the Ahl al-Bayt is not an incidental expression of one commentator, but has been reproduced in multiple works.
6–18. ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān al-Damanṭī in Nafʿ Qūt al-Mughtadhī: The Hadith’s Conditional Structure and the Connection Between Holding Fast and Guidance
Brief introduction: ʿAlī ibn Sulaymān al-Damanṭī al-Jamʿawī al-Maghribī was a Mālikī jurist and hadith commentator, and the author of Nafʿ Qūt al-Mughtadhī. He died in 1306 AH. The author of ʿAbaqāt cites his commentary on the literary and semantic structure of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things at the end of the evidence for the first aspect.
“‘So long as you hold fast to it’—and in the preceding transmission, ‘you take’ appears in place of ‘you hold fast.’ Al-Ṭībī said: ‘Mā’ is a relative pronoun, and the conditional clause is its relative clause. That is, if you act upon what it contains by complying with its commands and refraining from its prohibitions, love my Ahl al-Bayt, and follow their guidance and way, then this contains an indication that the two are like twin successors from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace.’”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 30; PDF: 41.
Translation: In the phrase “mā in tamassaktum bihi”—and in the preceding transmission, “akhadhtum” appears in place of “tamassaktum”—al-Ṭībī said: “‘Mā’ is a relative pronoun, and the conditional clause is its relative clause; that is, if you act upon what is in the Book, comply with its commands, and refrain from its prohibitions, love my Ahl al-Bayt, and follow their guidance and way, then this expression indicates that the two are like twin successors from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace.”
First syntactic analysis: “mā” as a relative pronoun and guidance’s placement within the relative clause
The first technical point in Damanati’s analysis is determining the type of “mā”:
“mā is a relative pronoun”
In a construction such as:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray…”
According to this analysis, “mā” is a relative pronoun, meaning “that which…”. Thus, from the very outset, the sentence speaks of something whose description is determined by a proposition about guidance: if one holds fast to it, misguidance will not follow.
Then Damanti says:
“والجملة الشرطية صلتها”
That is, the conditional clause “إن تمسكتم به...” is the relative clause. Within this relative clause, the pronoun “هاء” in “به” is the resumptive pronoun referring back to the relative pronoun, and it establishes the syntactic link between “ما” and the action of “تمسك.”
This point is important semantically, because the thing or referent that the Prophet leaves among the community is not presented with a neutral description; rather, within the relative clause itself, the community’s relationship to it is one of holding fast and being delivered from misguidance.
Thus, the structure of the statement is guidance-oriented from the outset:
ما ← إن تمسكتم به ← لن تضلوا
In this construction, “holding fast” is the condition, and “not going astray” is its effect and result. Therefore, in this context, holding fast cannot be reduced to a meaning devoid of guidance and adherence.
“You took” instead of “you held fast”: evidence for the practical meaning of holding fast
Damanati also points to an important verbal variant:
“أخذتم بدل تمسكتم”
That is, in another transmission, the expression “أخذتم” (“you took”) appears instead of “you held fast.”
This difference in wording is useful from a semantic perspective. “أخذ” in this kind of context does not mean mere contact or interest; it refers to taking and accepting something as a guide and a basis for action. Thus, the transmitted variant “أخذتم” helps clarify the practical meaning of “تمسكتم” and shows that the discussion concerns a relationship that has an effective role in the path of guidance.
However, one should not transfer all the lexical properties of “أخذ” to “تمسک” merely because one word replaces the other in another transmission. At the very least, though, the co-occurrence of these two expressions in the hadith’s transmission routes shows that the commentator understands “تمسک” within the semantic field of taking hold, commitment, and action, not mere veneration.
Interpreting “Holding Fast to the Qur’an”: “Action, Compliance, and Refraining”
Dimanti, quoting al-Tibi, explicates holding fast to the Qur’an as follows:
“إن عملتم بما فيه ائتماراً بأوامره وانتهاءً عن نواهيه”
There are three elements in this statement:
عملتم بما فيه: acting according to the Qur’an’s contents; ائتماراً بأوامره: accepting and complying with its commands; انتهاءً عن نواهيه: refraining from what it has forbidden.
Thus, in this commentator’s view, “holding fast” to the Qur’an is interpreted precisely in the language of obedience and the regulation of conduct.
This point makes the next section all the more important, because when the commentary turns to the Prophet’s Household, it does not present a merely emotional relationship.
“You loved my Household and followed their guidance and way of life”: Love Is Not the Entire Meaning of the Relationship
Regarding the Prophet’s Household, he says:
“وأحببتم عترتي واهتديتم بهداهم وسيرتهم”
The conjunctive structure of this phrase is very important. Two independent verbs are placed alongside one another:
You loved my family and followed their guidance and way of life.
Therefore, love for the Prophet’s family is not the full scope of the relationship. If the intended meaning were simply friendship, the sentence could have ended with “أحببتم عترتي” (“you loved my family”); but the commentator coordinates with it a second relationship, one that is decisive for the present discussion:
“اهتديتم بهداهم وسيرتهم” (“you followed their guidance and way of life”).
“Following guidance” means finding the way through their guidance and making that guidance the path to attaining the right way. The addition of “their way of life” also shows that this guidance is not merely the transmission of a body of information; their conduct and practical method are also objects of following.
Consequently, the semantic structure of the phrase is as follows:
Love for the Prophet’s family + taking guidance from their guidance + proceeding according to their way of life.
This very conjunction wāw closes off the possibility of reducing the hadith to “love of the Ahl al-Bayt.”
The Pronoun Shift: From “ʿItratī” to “Their Guidance and Conduct”
In “ʿItratī,” the ʿitra is presented as a collective designation; then in:
“هداهم وسيرتهم”
the plural pronoun “هم” refers back to the individuals of the ʿitra. This shift shows that, in Damanṭī’s explanation, “ʿitra” is not merely an abstract designation or family lineage; its members possess guidance and a conduct toward which the community must find its way.
Thus, the relation of guidance pertains to the individuals of the ʿitra themselves.
“For in it there is an indication”: the conclusion the commentator draws from the whole composition
After explaining the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt, Damanti says:
“For in it there is an indication that the two are like twin successors to the Messenger of God…”
The “fa” in “ففيه” indicates a consequence; that is, this conclusion follows from the preceding explanation. Also, “أنهما,” with its dual pronoun, once again brings the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt together as two entities in a shared relationship.
He had initially spoken of the members of the Ahl al-Bayt with the plural pronoun “هم”:
“هداهم وسيرتهم”
However, when comparing the two weighty things, he again uses the dual pronoun:
“أنهما”
That is, the Qur’an and the عترة.
This precise shift in pronouns shows that the commentator recognizes the multiplicity of the أفراد العترة while also preserving the unity of the title “العترة” in relation to the Qur’an, as one of the two weighty things.
“كالتوأمين الخليفتين”: Two Twins in the Succession of Guidance
The expression:
“Like twin successors from the Messenger of God”
Rhetorically, this is powerful. The comparison to “twins” indicates the close companionship and connection of the two weighty trusts. Then “successors” extends this companionship into the period after the Prophet: they are two things that the Messenger of God leaves for the community after him.
This meaning is very important in responding to Dehlavi: in the view of this commentator, the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt are not two unrelated matters; rather, like two companions left behind by the Prophet, they connect the community to their guidance in the period after him.
The Conditional Structure and Its Consequence: The Point That Makes Dehlavi’s Argument Difficult
The strongest aspect of this evidence must be seen in the combination of its elements, not in a single word:
The relative pronoun “ما” → identifies the referent left behind; the conditional clause → makes adherence the condition; the resumptive pronoun “به” → connects the act of adherence to the referent; “لن تضلوا” → the result of guidance; the narration “أخذتم” → reinforces the meaning of taking and commitment; “اهتديتم بهداهم وسيرتهم” → explicitly states receiving guidance from the Ahl al-Bayt; “أنهما” → returns the dual form to the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt; “كتوأمين خليفتين” → the continuation of their close connection after the Messenger of God.
Together, these form a coherent network of signification centered on holding fast, adherence, guidance, and the continuity of religious authority.
Therefore, in response to Dehlavi’s claim, it is not enough to say: “Not everything one holds fast to is necessarily a leader.” This response overlooks the entire structure of the hadith. The real question is: What is the relationship to the community’s guiding authority of that which one must take up and hold fast to in order to be delivered from misguidance, when one of its two components is the Ahl al-Bayt, whose guidance and conduct one must follow?
The Evidentiary Value of This Testimony
Dementi’s statement is important for the first aspect because it establishes the consequence of “following” on the basis of a relatively detailed linguistic analysis. Here, we are no longer dealing merely with a free translation of the hadith: the relative pronoun, its clause, the condition, the resumptive pronoun, the variant wording “akhadhtum/tamassaktum,” the plural and dual pronouns, and the concluding simile have all been placed on a single path of meaning.
The upshot of this testimony may be formulated as follows:
In Dementi’s analysis, the syntactic structure of the hadith is guidance-oriented from beginning to end: holding fast is the condition for avoiding misguidance; holding fast to the Quran is interpreted as obeying its commands and prohibitions; the relationship to the Ahl al-Bayt entails, beyond love, “following their guidance and conduct”; and at the end, the Quran and the Ahl al-Bayt are called, with the dual pronoun, “two twin successors of the Messenger of God.” Such a structure is incompatible with an interpretation that strips the Ahl al-Bayt of any guiding authority.
6–19. Ḥasan al-Zamān in *Qawl al-Mustaḥsan*: The Two Weighty Things After the Hadith of Allegiance
Brief introduction: Ḥasan al-Zamān Ḥaydarābādī was an Indian Sunni scholar and the author of *al-Qawl al-Mustaḥsan fī Fakhr al-Ḥasan*. His year of death could not be reliably established from the biographical sources available to this study. The aforementioned work was in circulation and print in India in the late thirteenth/early fourteenth century AH.
“Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī in *Nawādir al-Uṣūl* and al-Ṭabarānī in *al-Kabīr* relate, from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Ḥudhayfa ibn Usayd (may God be pleased with them both), that the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) delivered a sermon at Ghadīr Khumm beneath some trees and said: ‘O people! The Subtle, the All-Aware has informed me that no prophet has been granted a lifespan except half the lifespan of the prophet who preceded him, and I may soon be summoned and respond. I am answerable, and you are answerable; so what will you say?’ They said: ‘We bear witness that you have conveyed the message, striven, and counselled sincerely. May God reward you with good.’ He said: ‘Do you not bear witness that there is no god but God, that Muḥammad is His servant and Messenger, that His Paradise is true and His Fire is true, that death is true, that resurrection after death is true, that the Hour is coming without any doubt, and that God will raise those who are in the graves?’ They said: ‘Yes, we bear witness to that.’ He said: ‘O God, bear witness.’ Then he said: ‘O people! God is my master, I am the master of the believers, and I have greater claim over them than they have over themselves. So whoever has me as his master, this man is his master’—meaning ʿAlī. ‘O God, befriend whoever befriends him and oppose whoever opposes him.’ Then he said: ‘O people! I shall precede you, and you will come to me at the Pond—the Pond whose width extends from Busra to Sanʿāʾ, and which has silver cups as numerous as the stars. When you come to me, I shall ask you about the Two Weighty Things, so consider how you succeed me with regard to them. The greater weight is the Book of God, Almighty and Glorious: one end is in God’s hand and the other end is in your hands. Hold fast to it; do not go astray or alter it. And [the other is] my progeny, the people of my household. The Subtle, the All-Aware has informed me that the two will not part until they come to me at the Pond.’ This contains an exhortation to follow the Two Weighty Things after the hadith of allegiance.”
*ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār*, vol. 20, pp. 30–31; PDF: 41–42.
Translation: Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and al-Ṭabarānī relate from Ḥudhayfa ibn Usayd that at Ghadīr Khumm, after eliciting testimony to the principles of faith, the Prophet said: ‘God is my master, I am the master of the believers, and I have greater claim over them than they have over themselves; so whoever has me as his master, ʿAlī is his master.’ He then said that you would come to him at the Pond and that he would ask you about the Two Weighty Things; consider how you treat them after me. The greater weight is the Book of God; hold fast to it so that you do not go astray or alter it. The other is my progeny, the people of my household. Ḥasan al-Zamān states explicitly at the end: ‘In this report, following the hadith of allegiance, emphasis is placed on following the Two Weighty Things.’
Analysis: The connection between allegiance and the Two Weighty Things: The temporal proximity of the two hadiths alone is not sufficient to establish every detail of the theory of the Imamate, but here the evidence is not merely their juxtaposition. Before the phrase “Whoever has me as his master,” the words “I have greater claim over them than they have over themselves” occur; “greater claim over themselves” establishes a context of authority to act, precedence, and power. Then “I am the master of the believers” appears in that same context, and ʿAlī is introduced in its continuation through “Whoever has me as his master, this man is his master.” Immediately after this declaration, the Prophet raises the community’s responsibility toward the Two Weighty Things, followed by “hold fast” and “following the Two Weighty Things.” This verbal and contextual continuity carries the semantic field far beyond mere love and brings it close to guidance, precedence, and obedience. Even someone who does not accept the Imami conclusion can no longer maintain without addressing this context al-Dahlawī’s claim that there is “no connection whatsoever” with leadership.
6–20. Ḥasan al-Zamān: Repetition of the Same Connection Through Multiple Transmission Routes
Brief introduction: The same Ḥasan al-Zamān, this time with a list of hadith transmission routes and sources among Sunnis.
“Likewise, in the narration of Ibn Rāhwayh, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim, al-Maḥāmilī, and al-Ṭaḥāwī, with sound chains of transmission; and in al-Nasāʾī’s al-Kubrā and al-Khaṣāʾiṣ, and Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim in their Ṣaḥīḥs, from Abū ʿAwānah; and for ʿAbd Allāh, from Sharīk—both from al-Aʿmash—who said: Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit narrated to us, from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam. He said: When the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, returned from the Farewell Pilgrimage and stopped at Ghadīr Khumm … they related the hadith about urging adherence to the Two Weighty Things, up to his words: Then he said, ‘Indeed, God is my Master, and I am the guardian of every believer.’ Then he took ʿAlī by the hand and said, ‘Whoever has me as his guardian, this man is his guardian. O God, befriend whoever befriends him, and oppose whoever opposes him.’ The wording of ʿAbd Allāh is ‘his master.’ This too is a Kūfan hadith. Al-Ḥākim said: ‘It is sound according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, though they did not include it.’”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 31; PDF: 42.
Translation: Ḥasan al-Zamān says that this same meaning appears in the narration of Ibn Rāhwayh, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim, al-Maḥāmilī, and al-Ṭaḥāwī with sound chains, and also in reports by al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Ḥākim. The hadith emphasizes adherence to the Two Weighty Things and then says: “God is my Master, and I am the guardian of every believer”; then he took ʿAlī by the hand and said: “Whoever has me as his guardian, this ʿAlī is his guardian.” At the end, he also cites al-Ḥākim’s authentication according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs.
Analysis: The value of this passage lies in its “repeatability.” The author of ʿAbaqāt does not highlight only one isolated wording; through Ḥasan al-Zamān’s account, he shows that the connection between adherence to the Two Weighty Things and ʿAlī’s guardianship is reported through several routes and in several books. From the perspective of critical thinking, the independent recurrence of a semantic pattern reduces the likelihood that the conclusion is merely the product of selecting an exceptional narration.
6–21. Ḥasan al-Zamān: Evidence from Purification, ʿArafah, and Ghadīr
Brief introduction: This is the same Ḥasan al-Zamān; this section presents a body of evidence identifying the Ahl al-Bayt and repeated calls to follow the Two Weighty Things on several occasions.
Among what also bears witness to this is the sound report of Saʿd: “O God, these are my Ahl al-Bayt,” in the account of the mutual imprecation. In al-Ṣawāʿiq, it is also quoted from al-Kashshāf: “There is no stronger proof of the merit of the Companions of the Cloak than this; for when the verse was revealed, the Prophet, God bless him and his family and grant them peace, called them, embraced al-Ḥusayn, took al-Ḥasan by the hand, and Fāṭimah walked behind him, with ʿAlī behind her. Thus it became clear that they are those intended by the verse.” End quote. The sound report of Jābir and Abū Saʿīd urging adherence to the Two Weighty Things in the sermon on the Day of ʿArafah during the Farewell Pilgrimage says: “and my ʿitrah, the people of my household”; and the sound report of Zayd ibn Arqam and Zayd ibn Thābit urging adherence to them at Ghadīr Khumm says: “and the people of my household,” and in one narration: “my ʿitrah, the people of my household.” A report from Anas, recorded by Aḥmad and others, states: “Whenever he went out for the dawn prayer, he would say: ‘Prayer, prayer, O people of the household! God only desires to remove defilement from you, O people of the household, and to purify you completely.’”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 31; PDF: 42.
Translation: Among the evidence for this point is the sound report of Saʿd in the account of mutual imprecation: “O God, these are my Ahl al-Bayt.” In al-Ṣawāʿiq, it is also quoted from al-Kashshāf that there is no stronger proof of the merit of the Companions of the Cloak, for when the verse was revealed the Prophet called them, making clear who was meant by the verse. The sound report of Jābir and Abū Saʿīd in the ʿArafah sermon also stresses adherence to the Two Weighty Things with the wording “my ʿitrah, the people of my household”; and the sound report of Zayd ibn Arqam and Zayd ibn Thābit at Ghadīr Khumm conveys the same point with “the people of my household” or “my ʿitrah, the people of my household.” The report of Anas also states that when the Prophet went out for the dawn prayer, he would recite the Verse of Purification while addressing the Ahl al-Bayt.
Analysis: This body of evidence serves three purposes: it clarifies the identity of the Ahl al-Bayt through evidence from purification and the Cloak; shows that the call to follow the Two Weighty Things was not confined to a single gathering; and strengthens the connection between the identity of the ʿitrah and their role as guides. From the standpoint of inductive inquiry, the variety of occasions—ʿArafah, Ghadīr, and reports concerning the Verse of Purification—keeps the case for the first aspect from resting on a single wording.
7. Syntactic Analysis and the Structure of the Statement: Why Is the Hadith’s Prima Facie Meaning Contrary to Dehlavi’s Reduction?
Before any theological argument, the hadith’s apparent structure presents several clear indicators. First, “the Book of God” and “my عترة” are joined by the conjunction wāw within a single construction. Second, the dual pronouns such as “in them both” (بهما), “in them both” (فيهما), and “they both” (إنهما), as well as “you follow them both” (تتبعونهما) in some commentaries, refer the ruling back to both. Third, the conclusion “you will never go astray” (لن تضلوا), or similar expressions, is placed in a conditional relation with adherence. Thus, the initial prima facie meaning is not that the Qur’an is the “reference” and the عترة merely “beloved”; rather, both are included in a single guiding relation in the sentence’s structure, though the nature of this relation must be explained through contextual evidence.
This is where the commentators’ statements become significant. Taftazani moves from pairing the two as counterparts to “and likewise with respect to the عترة” (فكذا في العترة); Khafaji places “your acting upon the Book of God” (عملكم بكتاب الله) alongside “your following my Household” (اتباعكم لأهل بيتي); Zarqani says “Do you follow them both?” (هل تتبعونهما); Azizi treats “and my عترة” (وعترتي) as coordinated with “the Book of God” and interprets the conclusion as “do not oppose them both” (لا تخالفوهما); and Damanti analyzes the relative-clause and conditional construction in terms of acting and receiving guidance. Thus, the claim that there is no relation between the hadith and authority/leadership runs contrary to the prima facie meanings that Sunni commentators themselves also recognized.
8. Exhaustive Collection, Inductive Survey, and Scholarly Fairness in the Method of the Author of ʿAbaqāt
The first aspect offers a suitable example for assessing the research logic of the author of ʿAbaqāt. Had he cited only one statement from a single commentator sympathetic to his position, he could have been accused of selectively choosing evidence. Yet, in a few short pages, he assembles a chain of authorities: a theologian, hadith scholar, jurist, man of letters, hadith commentator, and even well-known writers opposed to the Imāmiyya. Beyond the diversity of individuals, the diversity of terminology also matters: guidance, following as a model, adherence, learning, acquiring knowledge, not opposing, succession, and precedence. The convergence of these words within one semantic field means that the conclusion no longer rests on a single particular expression.
In critical thinking, one way to reduce confirmation bias is for the researcher deliberately to include “evidence inconsistent with their own presupposition,” or evidence originating from the opposing camp. The author of ʿAbaqāt makes precise use of this advantage. In this respect, citing Ibn Rūzbehān and Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī is not merely adding two more citations; they are evidence that, given their known stance toward the Imāmiyya, reduces the likelihood that the result can be explained by “sectarian sympathy.”
From the standpoint of fairness, too, the method of the author of ʿAbaqāt is noteworthy: he cites the words of opposing scholars not only where they agree with his final conclusion, but also with their qualifications. A clear example is Zarqānī, who distinguishes the righteousness of all the Ahl al-Bayt from following their learned and practicing scholars; or Jarmī, who identifies the Ahl al-Bayt to be followed as the scholars and those learned in the Book and Sunnah. Preserving these qualifications shows that the purpose of the research method is not to construct an “admission beyond the text,” but to use that very measure of acceptance to refute Dahlawī’s absolute denial.
9. “Virtue lies in what the adversaries acknowledge”: Why is an opponent’s admission decisive here?
The rule of binding an opponent by his own premises plays a precise and limited role in this article. The author of ʿAbaqāt need not prove that Ibn Rūzbihān or Ibn Ḥajar accepted the entire Imāmī theory of the Imamate; such an attribution would go beyond their texts. To answer Dahlawī, it is enough to show that these very opponents regard the hadith as carrying the meanings of following, adherence, learning, and guidance. In this way, an important premise is established in the words of people who cannot be accused of “Shīʿī interpretation by personal opinion.”
For this reason, the opponent’s admission here functions as a “decisive refutation of a blanket denial.” Dahlawī claims “irrelevance”; Ibn Rūzbihān speaks of “one whose following is incumbent,” Ibn Ḥajar of “following, adherence, and learning,” Dawlatābādī of “the one whose imamate is recommended,” and Ḥasan al-Zamān of “following the Two Weighty Things after the hadith of mawālāt.” These do not necessarily lead to one and the same theological conclusion, but they all show that the hadith has been read in the context of authority, following, and precedence. Thus the rule “الأفضل ما يقرّ به الأعداء” is not a rhetorical flourish here, but a logic of evidence: testimony from someone who disagrees reduces the likelihood that the data have been interpreted in a partisan way.
10. The hadith of mawālāt in continuity with the Two Weighty Things: from love to the domain of precedence and obedience
The most important concluding part of the first argument is Ḥasan al-Zamān’s quotation. If only the sentence “Whoever has me as his mawlā, ʿAlī is his mawlā” were placed alongside the Two Weighty Things, the precise signification of “mawlā” could be disputed. But the text quoted in ʿAbaqāt says before it: “Indeed, God is my Master, and I am the master of the believers, and I have greater claim over them than they have over themselves.” The phrase “I have greater claim over them than they have over themselves” is an independent and very powerful indication, because “having greater claim over oneself” is not the kind of thing ordinary love entails; it belongs to the sphere of precedence and authority. Then ʿAlī is introduced in the same context with the words, “So whoever has me as his mawlā, this man is his mawlā.”
After this declaration, the discussion turns to the community’s responsibility toward the Two Weighty Things: “So consider how you will succeed me with regard to them both,” “So hold fast to it,” and, in Hasan al-Zaman’s analysis, “the urging to follow the Two Weighty Things after the hadith of allegiance.” This sequence shows that “allegiance” and “following” belong to the same gathering and the same field of guidance. In terms of contextual implication, this connection yields at least two sound conclusions: first, love alone cannot explain the full semantic capacity of the passage as a whole; second, Dahlan’s claim that there is no connection whatsoever with leadership must be considered in light of the indications “more entitled to them than their own selves” and “following the Two Weighty Things.”
Scientific caution requires that one not claim that the mere juxtaposition of these two hadiths, by itself, proves every detail of immediate imamate; but that same scientific caution does not permit clear indications of priority, authority, and following to be omitted, followed by the conclusion that “the hadith has no connection with leadership.” The strength of the method of the author of Abaqat lies precisely in this: first he lays out the entire context, and then he judges its implications.
11. Dahlan’s False Trail: A Sweeping Negation Contrary to the Apparent Meaning and His Own School’s Acknowledgments
After examining the first argument in detail, the precise point of Dahlan’s error becomes clearer. He substitutes a plausible-sounding general proposition—“not everyone to whom one must hold fast is a leader”—for an analysis of the specific case. This is like concluding from a legal text that “every command to follow does not necessarily amount to the appointment of a ruler” that no particular command to follow can play a role in a discussion of leadership. The sound method is to analyze the indications in that specific case; and, according to the testimony of Sunni commentators themselves, the indications in the hadith of the Two Weighty Things are emulation, following, guidance, learning, and protection from misguidance.
On this basis, Dahlan’s statement may be called “a great falsehood at the level of representing the implication”: a false proposition that presents the hadith’s semantic range as though it had no connection with following and religious authority, even though a host of scholars from his own Sunni tradition have identified precisely these connections. In this article, this expression is not a judgment about Dahlan’s inner intention; it is a judgment about the truth or falsity of a proposition put forward in argument. The forceful tone of the author of Abaqat is also understood within this framework: a forceful tone after evidence has been presented does not replace the evidence.
Dahlan was entitled to say that, in his view, the final conclusion of the Imami school does not follow from these premises, and then to debate whether the implication is necessary. But to say in advance that the hadith “has no connection with the claim” entails ignoring the very point at issue. The author of Abaqat’s first argument closes precisely this escape route: he first establishes that discussion of “following” is indeed present in the text and in the understanding of the opponents; therefore, the question of imamate cannot be removed from consideration by an initial blanket denial.
12. Conclusion
At first glance, the first argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār is merely the first of sixty-six arguments, but in terms of research method it supports an independent article. The author of ʿAbaqāt first quotes al-Dihlawī’s objection in its full explicitness, then reduces his own claim to a testable point: the meaning of holding fast to the ʿItra. Then, rather than settling for his own interpretation, he gathers a diverse body of statements by Sunni scholars.
The upshot of these statements is clear: in every respect in which the Qur’an is treated in the hadith as an object of adherence and guidance, the ʿItra is likewise, within the shared structure of the hadith, an object of following, seeking guidance, emulation, and learning. Al-Ṭībī speaks of seeking guidance from its guidance and way of life; al-Taftāzānī links “and likewise with regard to the ʿItra” to acquiring knowledge and guidance; Ibn Rūzbihān speaks of “one whose example must be followed”; Ibn Ḥajar explicitly mentions emulation and learning; al-Khafājī writes “your following the members of my Household”; al-ʿAzīzī traces the syntactic structure of coordination and dualization to “do not oppose them both”; al-Damanṭī explains the conditional relationship in terms of seeking guidance and the two caliphs; and Ḥasan al-Zamān records following the Two Weighty Things after the hadith of devotion.
This convergence yields two conclusions. First, as a matter of formal logic, al-Dihlawī’s universal negation is refuted by several authoritative pieces of evidence. Second, methodologically, the author of ʿAbaqāt, through the rule of holding one’s opponent to his own premises and the opponent’s own acknowledgment, closes off the charge of “interpretation based on personal opinion.” The conclusion of this article is not yet proof of every detail of the theory of the Imamate from the first argument; the more precise and at the same time stronger conclusion is that the claim that “the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things has no connection to the leadership and authority of the Ahl al-Bayt” collapses, from the very first argument, in the face of the hadith’s apparent meaning and the understanding of Sunni scholars.
From this perspective, the subsequent sixty-six arguments can also be studied as focused articles: each argument is a unit of reasoning with its own texts, evidence from opponents, and specific techniques of indication. But the first argument lays their common foundation: before disputing the scope of the Imamate, one must accept that in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things the ʿItra is not merely the object of love; it is the object of guidance and following.
Sources and References
Mir Hamid Husain Hindi, *Abaqat al-Anwar fi Imamat al-A'immat al-Athar*, vol. 20, the section on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, pp. 26–31 (PDF: 37–42). The primary source for all hadith quotations and statements by Sunni scholars in this article.
Al-Tibi, Husayn ibn Abdullah, *Al-Kashif 'an Haqa'iq al-Sunan* (commentary on *Mishkat al-Masabih*); the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *Abaqat*.
Al-Taftazani, Sa'd al-Din, *Sharh al-Maqasid*; the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *Abaqat*.
Al-Dawlatabadi, Shihab al-Din, *Hidayat al-Su'ada*; the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *Abaqat*.
Al-Samhudi, Nur al-Din, *Jawahir al-'Iqdain*; the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *Abaqat*.
Ibn Rawzbahan al-Khunji, Fadl Allah, *Sharh al-Risala al-I'tiqadiyya*; the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *Abaqat*.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, *al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqa*; the passage under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, *Sharḥ al-Shifāʾ*; the passage under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
al-Munāwī, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf, *Fayḍ al-Qadīr* and *al-Taysīr bi-Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr*; the passages under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
al-Khafājī, Shihāb al-Dīn, *Nasīm al-Riyāḍ*; the passage under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
al-ʿAzīzī, ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad, *al-Sirāj al-Munīr bi-Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr*; the passage under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
al-Zurqānī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī, *Sharḥ al-Mawāhib al-Laduniyya*; the passages under discussion, as quoted by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
Al-Dimanti al-Jamʿawi, ʿAli ibn Sulayman, *Nafʿ qūt al-mughtadhī*; the passage under discussion is quoted from the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
Al-Zirikli, Khayr al-Din, *al-Aʿlām*; for brief biographical information.
Kahhala, ʿUmar Riḍā, *Muʿjam al-muʾallifīn*; for brief biographical information and information about works.
Citation-method note: In reconstructing the first aspect, this article reports Sunni scholars’ quotations directly from the text of *ʿAbaqāt al-anwār* and, when citing each quotation, gives both the printed page number and the PDF page number of the original source. The one-line biographical introductions have been added to convey the evidentiary weight of the testimony and are not part of the argument made by the author of *ʿAbaqāt*.
