From Adherence to the Obligation of Obedience: A Scholarly Digest of the Second of Sixty-Six Indications of Hadith al-Thaqalayn in “Abaqat al-Anwar,” in Critique of Abd al-Aziz al-Dihlawi
Author: Hamed Sarem
Mir Hamid Husayn begins his second aspect of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn from the position that the hadith itself delineates for the Ahl al-Bayt: alongside the Qur’an, the Ahl al-Bayt are the second of the two weighty things and the object of the community’s adherence. From this very structure, he infers an obligation to follow and obey them that is not restricted to any particular subject, and then brings the question to a decisive point: which of the claimants to the caliphate possess such a text, which of them are paired with the Qur’an, and which mass-transmitted hadith has called upon the community to adhere to them?
Abstract
This article is the second study in a series that rewrites and analyzes, in separate articles and according to the order of Abaqat al-Anwar, the sixty-six aspects developed by Mir Hamid Husayn al-Hindi concerning the significance of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn. The first aspect, discussed previously, was devoted to the hadith’s indication that adherence entails following, emulation, and the guiding authority of the Ahl al-Bayt. The present article examines only the second aspect; the subsequent aspects will likewise be pursued in separate articles. Therefore, one should not expect from a single aspect an answer to all objections or a demonstration of all the theoretical implications of the doctrine of the Imamate. The central point of the second aspect is that the command to adhere to the Ahl al-Bayt, within the very structure of the hadith, is not restricted to any particular subject, and that the Ahl al-Bayt, alongside the Qur’an, constitute one of the two weighty things. The author of Abaqat explains this unrestricted meaning through the expressions “ittibaʿ” (following), “iqtifaʾ” (tracing), “iqtidaʾ” (emulation), “obligatory to follow,” and “necessary to obey,” and infers from absolute obedience and following after the Prophet their inseparable connection with the rank of Imamate. Alongside this affirmative dimension, the second aspect has a powerful negative dimension: with regard to the other claimants to the caliphate, there is neither a comparable command to adhere and obey, nor have they been presented as the second weighty thing and the counterpart of the Qur’an; in the reports and arguments of the author of Abaqat, no claim by them to such a position is recorded, and their followers have not accepted such parity either. If anyone were to make such a claim, they would possess no mass-transmitted text comparable to the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn in its support. From this perspective, in the logic of the author of Abaqat, the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is a direct response to the denial of any textual designation establishing the Imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt. The three testimonies quoted from Muhammad Muʿin Sindhi, Muhammad Mubin Lakhnawi, and Rashid al-Din Dehlawi are also examined through brief introductions, quotation, smoothing of the prose, and explanation of their central point.
Keywords: Hadith of al-Thaqalayn; Abaqat al-Anwar; Mir Hamid Husayn al-Hindi; ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlawi; adherence; unrestrictedness; obligation to follow; Imamate; caliphate; the two weighty things.
1. Introduction: Where Does This Article Belong in the Project of the Sixty-Six Aspects?
In responding to ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlawi’s brief judgment concerning the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, Mir Hamid Husayn al-Hindi does not offer a single, condensed response; rather, he organizes sixty-six independent aspects. This architecture is important for understanding Abaqat. Each aspect isolates one part of the argument and approaches Dehlawi’s claim from a fresh angle. Thus, if all the implications of the hadith, all the objections, and all the responses were gathered into the article dealing with a single aspect, the boundaries of the author of Abaqat’s arguments would disappear, and the rationale for separating the sixty-six aspects would likewise be overlooked.
Accordingly, the first aspect was examined in a separate article. That article showed that, in the understanding of the author of Abaqat and the evidence he cites, “holding fast to the Ahl al-Bayt” in the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is not merely a matter of love or respect; rather, it is connected with seeking guidance, emulation, following, and acquiring knowledge. The present article begins from that same point and rewrites only the second aspect: if the Ahl al-Bayt are to be followed, what is the degree of this following, and what relation does this degree have to the Imamate?
The third through the sixty-sixth aspects will likewise be examined in separate articles. After the series is completed, it will also be possible to write a comprehensive article that places all the aspects alongside one another, clarifies their interrelations, answers the scattered objections in their proper places, and assesses the cumulative result of the sixty-six aspects. Therefore, restricting this article to the second aspect is not a deficiency; it is a condition of fidelity to the structure of Abaqat itself.
2. The Statement of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dehlawī and the Point of Entry into the Second Aspect
“And this hadith too, in accordance with the purport of the preceding hadiths, has no bearing on the claim, since it is not necessary that the one who holds fast [to it] be attached to the possessor of supreme leadership.”
Source: Abaqat al-Anwar, vol. 20, p. 26; file page: 37.
Dehlawī sees no necessary connection between “being one to whom people hold fast” and “supreme leadership,” and through this route he removes the hadith from the discussion of the Imamate. The first aspect of Abaqat addressed the basic meaning of holding fast. The second aspect moves one step further: the author of Abaqat argues that what is presented in the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is not a restricted, issue-specific form of adherence; the Ahl al-Bayt have been placed alongside the Qur’an, and the command to hold fast to them has been addressed to the community without any special qualification being mentioned. He then explains this very adherence in the language of following and obedience, and concludes that such a position necessarily entails the caliphate and the Imamate.
Thus, in this respect, two levels must be distinguished. First is the hadith’s indication of adhering to the ʿitrah and the unrestricted nature of that indication; this part concerns the hadith’s very linguistic structure. Second is the conclusion that the author of ʿAbaqāt draws from this unrestricted adherence, namely, that he regards it as inseparable from the imamate. Confusing these two levels leads one to suppose that “comprehensive obedience” is merely a remote implication or an external inference from the hadith, whereas, in the author of ʿAbaqāt’s formulation, the principle of unrestrictedness follows from the command itself to adhere and from the absence of any qualifier in it; only afterward is an inseparable connection established between such obedience and the station of the imamate.
3. The Complete Text of the Second Argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār
“Argument 2: Establishing the Obligation to Follow the Ahl al-Bayt as One Follows the Qur’an, and Transmitting the Statements of the Great Authorities
The second argument is that it is clear and evident to those endowed with insight from this noble hadith that the Messenger of God—ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-ālihi wa-sallam—made following, pursuing, and emulating his Ahl al-Bayt obligatory and binding upon his community, just as following and pursuing the Majestic Qur’an and the Glorious Criterion are obligatory; thereby he brought the completion of proof to the highest and loftiest degrees. It is plainly evident that those whose following, after the Messenger of God—ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-ālihi wa-sallam—is obligatory and binding in the same manner as following the Qur’an can be none other than the caliphs and imams. Thus, without doubt or hesitation, it became clear that the Ahl al-Bayt of that noble person—peace be upon him and them—who, by the explicit wording of this hadith, are as obligatory to follow and as necessary to obey as the Book of God, were the true caliphs of the Messenger of God—ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-ālihi wa-sallam—and the genuine imams of his entire community. Their rank was a thousand times higher than that of the people-made caliphs, because none of the rational, indeed not even the foolish, regards the rulings of the three caliphs and the other usurping caliphs as obligatory to follow like the rulings of the Qur’an; nor does any fanatical and contentious partisan make them companions of the Majestic Qur’an and counterparts of the Glorious Criterion in the obligation to follow. Even if, hypothetically, one of the rabble were to undertake such a claim, how could the text of the Best of Creation—ṣalawāt Allāh ʿalayhi wa-ālihi al-kirām—support him with a mutawātir hadith such as this, transmitted among both the elect and the common people?! God is the Guardian of guidance at every place and station.
Although this noble hadith’s indication that following the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, is obligatory, just as following the Majestic Qur’an is obligatory, is not concealed from anyone who examines the statements of the eminent Sunni scholars cited above, I shall nevertheless present here some further passages to increase the discerning reader’s insight.”
Source: ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, pp. 32–33; file pages: 43–44.
4. The Accurate and Fluent Rendering of the Words of the Author of Abaqat
Mir Hamid Husayn says: From the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn it is clear to people of insight that the Noble Prophet made following, pursuing the way of, and emulating his Ahl al-Bayt obligatory and necessary for the community, just as following the Qur’an, and by this statement established the proof against the people in the most complete manner. In his view, those whose following after the Messenger of God must be obligatory to a degree comparable to following the Qur’an can be none other than the true caliphs and imams of the community. Thus, the Ahl al-Bayt, who by the explicit wording of this hadith must be followed and obeyed just like the Book of God, are the true successors of the Prophet and the genuine imams of the community.
Mir Hamid Husayn then compares their status with that of the other claimants to the caliphate. He says that no rational person—or even the ignorant—regards the rulings of the three caliphs or of others who occupied the seat of the caliphate as obligatory to follow like the rulings of the Qur’an; and even their most fanatical supporters do not present them, in the necessity of following them, as the counterparts of the Qur’an and companions of the Furqan. If it were assumed that someone made such a claim out of fanaticism, the author of Abaqat asks: Which text from the Prophet could support this claim and equal the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, which is mutawatir among both the elite and the general public? He concludes this section with a prayer for divine guidance.
In the concluding sentence as well, the author of Abaqat explains that although the indication of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn that following the Ahl al-Bayt is obligatory, just as following the Qur’an is obligatory, is clear in light of the statements of the Sunni scholars quoted earlier, he nevertheless cites several additional passages from Sunni scholars to clarify the matter further and increase the reader’s insight. Thus, the subsequent quotations in Abaqat are not a new argument separate from the foundation of the reasoning; they are witnesses showing that the author of Abaqat’s understanding of the hadith is also reflected in the words of scholars of the opposing school.
5. The Evidentiary Core of the Second Aspect
5.1. The Precise Difference Between the First and Second Aspects
The first aspect concerned the basic nature of the relationship between the community and the ʿitrah: Does “holding fast” mean only love and respect, or does it also include following, emulation, and guiding authority? Once, in the first aspect, holding fast had been established in the sense of following and emulation, the second aspect does not reopen that discussion. The new question is how binding this following is. The answer of the author of Abaqāt is clear: “Like following and obeying the Qur’an ... obligatory and necessary.” Thus, the second aspect addresses the degree and scope of obligation, not the very existence of following.
5–2. Absolute Holding Fast: The Hadith’s Verbal Indication, Not an External Entailment
The central point of this aspect is that holding fast to the ʿitrah is not restricted to any particular subject in the structure of the hadith. In the well-known expression, “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا”, the object of holding fast is those two weighty trusts themselves, and the sentence contains no qualifier such as “in love,” “in transmitting hadith,” “in family matters,” or “in certain rulings.” Therefore, if we use “explicit wording” (manṭūq) in contrast to contrary implication or an external entailment, the basic command to hold fast, and the absence of any qualifier concerning its object, are understood from that very explicit wording and from the unqualified appearance of the statement. This generality is not something that the article or the author of Abaqāt added to the hadith after the fact.
Of course, the hadith uses the word “holding fast” (tamassuk), not the word “obedience” (ṭāʿah). The connection between holding fast and following and emulation was examined in the first aspect, and in the second aspect the author of Abaqāt takes that conclusion for granted. Accordingly, the more precise formulation is this: The hadith presents holding fast to the ʿitrah in absolute terms; and once the guiding meaning of holding fast has been clarified, the author of Abaqāt explicates this generality through “following” (ittibāʿ), “tracing their path” (iqtifāʾ), “emulation” (iqtidāʾ), “obligatory to follow,” and “necessary to obey.” Thus, within his argumentative system, the comprehensiveness of obedience begins with the unrestricted nature of holding fast itself, not with an analogy external to the hadith.
5–3. Why Does Such Obedience Entail Imamate?
The next stage is the author of Abaqāt’s argument: If the Prophet, after himself, obligates the community to follow a group, does not restrict this following to a particular subject, and places them alongside the Qur’an in this very position, then such a status is not a partial or limited authority. For this reason, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn states directly that those whose following, after the Prophet, is “obligatory and necessary like following the Qur’an” “can be none other than the caliphs and the Imams.” Here, the claimed entailment is between “absolute obedience and following after the Prophet” and “Imamate,” not between every kind of obligatory obedience and Imamate.
Therefore, examples such as obeying one’s parents, teacher, or commander do not fundamentally represent the form of the argument. Obedience to them is stipulated in a particular matter and subject to clear qualifications, whereas in the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, the ‘Itrat is one of the two weighty trusts, and adherence to it is mentioned alongside adherence to the Qur’an without any subject-specific qualification. Mir Hamid Husayn regards this very difference as the basis for moving from the “obligation to follow” to “the caliphate and imamate.”
5.4. The ‘Itrat as the Second Weighty Trust and the Qur’an’s Counterpart in the Structure of the Hadith
The second important element in the argument is not merely the obligation to adhere; it is the manner in which the ‘Itrat is positioned in the text of the hadith. The Prophet speaks of “the two weighty trusts”: the Book of God and the ‘Itrat. Thus, within the hadith’s structure of guidance, the ‘Itrat is placed alongside the Qur’an, and the command to adhere applies to both. In this discussion, the expression “the Qur’an’s counterpart” means that, in the division of the two weighty trusts and in the community’s duty to adhere, the ‘Itrat is the second counterpart alongside the Book of God.
It is precisely here that the phrase “such as following and obeying the Qur’an” in the words of the author of Abaqat acquires its meaning. He does not say that the ‘Itrat is identical to the Qur’an or equal to it in every respect; rather, he says that, in the respect under discussion—namely, the necessity of following and adhering for guidance—the Prophet placed the two side by side. In his view, this very position is decisive for the discussion of the imamate.
6. The Negative Dimension of the Second Aspect: Mir Hamid Husayn’s Attack on the Claimants to the Caliphate
If the second aspect is reduced merely to the statement that “the Ahl al-Bayt must be followed,” half of Mir Hamid Husayn’s argument remains unseen. The second part of his বক্তব্য is explicitly comparative and negative: after establishing the position of the ‘Itrat, the author of Abaqat turns to the other claimants to the caliphate and asks: which of them possesses any of these textual distinctions? This part can be organized into four points.
6.1. Regarding the Claimants to the Caliphate, There Is No Equivalent Command to Hold Fast to and Obey Them
In the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, the community is commanded to hold fast to the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt. By contrast, regarding the three caliphs and other claimants to the caliphate, there is no equivalent Prophetic text that commands the community to hold fast to them or follow them in the same manner as the Qur’an.
The discussion concerns a text on the level of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn that designates a person or group, after the Prophet, as the object of the community’s guided adherence. The argument of the author of Abaqāt is that no such text has been presented concerning the claimants to the caliphate. This text is exclusive to the Ahl al-Bayt.
6.2. The Claimants to the Caliphate Are Neither the Second Thaqal nor the Counterpart of the Qur’an
The second difference emerges from the very formulation of the hadith. The Ahl al-Bayt, together with the Qur’an, constitute “the two weighty things” (al-Thaqalayn); however, the other caliphs have no place in this division. Mir Ḥāmid Ḥusayn expresses this point in the emphatic and clear phrase, “the counterpart of the Glorious Qur’an and the ally of the Praiseworthy Criterion in the necessity of following.” In his view, this pairing is not a merely ceremonial distinction; it signifies the position of guidance and authority that the hadith establishes for the Ahl al-Bayt. If a claimant to the caliphate has not been placed in such a position, then, in terms of the text, his status is not identical to that of the Ahl al-Bayt.
6.3. Neither They nor Their Followers Claimed Such Equivalence; and Even a Hypothetical Claim Lacks a Mass-Transmitted Text
In this section, the author of *Abaqāt* also employs a historical argument. He says that no rational person regards the rulings of the three caliphs and the other rulers as obligatory to follow in the same way as the rulings of the Qur’an; even the most zealous of their followers do not consider them, in terms of the obligation to follow them, the Qur’an’s equals. This wording shows that, in his view, the rival tradition itself has not formulated such a degree of obedience for the caliphs it accepts.
Mir Ḥāmid Ḥusayn then also closes off the possibility of claiming the contrary: even if someone were to make such a claim for them out of sectarian zeal, he would have to produce a text from the Prophet whose indication and authority were equal to those of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn. The phrase «فأنّى يساعده نصّ خير الأنام ... بمثل هذا الحديث المتواتر بين الخاص والعام؟» expresses precisely this demand. Thus, the issue is not merely the absence of such a claim; the absence of a mutawātir prophetic support equal to the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is also part of the negative side of the argument.
6.4. The Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the Response to the Basis of “No Text on the Imamate”
Within the framework of the *Abaqāt*’s dispute with the view that denies the existence of a text establishing the imamate of the Ahl al-Bayt, the second aspect serves a function extending beyond proving a virtue. If the عترت is one of the two weighty things in the Prophetic text, if the community is commanded to adhere to it, if this adherence is not subject to any restriction concerning its object, and if its status with respect to the obligation to follow it is measured against the Qur’an, then it can no longer be readily claimed that there is no text whatsoever concerning leadership after the Prophet. In the logic of the author of *Abaqāt*, this very structure of the hadith constitutes an explicit and manifest text concerning the principle of the guiding office and the imamate of the عترت.
This does not mean, of course, that the second aspect alone proves the names of all the Imams, their order, infallibility, superiority, and every detail of the Imami theory. Those questions are pursued through the other aspects. The limited point of this aspect is that the claim of “no text” or of the hadith’s “complete irrelevance to the imamate” is incompatible with the unrestricted wording of adherence, the pairing of the عترت with the Qur’an, and the obligation to follow. From this perspective, for the author of *Abaqāt* the hadith is not merely a corroboration of the imamate; it is an explicit and manifest text directing the community toward the authority and leader after the Prophet.
7. First Witness: Muḥammad Muʿīn Sindhī
Muhammad Muʿīn ibn Muhammad Amīn Sindī was a Sunni Hanafi scholar and the author of *Dirāsāt al-Labīb fī al-Uswah al-Ḥasanah bi-al-Ḥabīb*. A brief introduction to him suffices for this article; what matters here is the statement that the author of *ʿAbaqāt* quotes from him concerning the manner of adhering to the Ahl al-Bayt.
«فنظرنا فإذا هو مصرّح بالتمسّك بهم، وبأنّ اتباعهم كاتباع القرآن على الحق الواضح، وبأنّ ذلك أمر متحتّم من الله تعالى لهم، ولا يطرأ عليهم في ذلك ما يخالفه حتى الورود على الحوض، وإذا فيه حثّ بالتمسّك فيهما بعد الحثّ على وجه أبلغ؛ وهو قوله: فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما!! فقلنا حديث مسلم حديث صحيح ظاهر في معنى، ففسّره على ذلك المعنى حديث حسن آخر، فثبت معناه نصّاً من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فآمنا به في نظائره من صحاح الأحاديث، والحمد لله رب العالمين.» [English translation: “We examined it and found that it explicitly enjoins adherence to them, and that following them is like following the Qur’an in the manifest truth; and that this is an obligatory command from God Most High concerning them, with nothing contrary to it affecting them until they reach the Pond. We also found in it an exhortation to adhere to both of them, following the exhortation in an even more emphatic form: ‘So consider how you will succeed me with regard to them!’ We therefore said: Muslim’s hadith is an authentic hadith whose meaning is apparent; another sound hadith interpreted it according to that meaning. Thus its meaning was established explicitly from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and we accepted it as we do its counterparts among the authentic hadiths. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.”]
Source: *ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār*, vol. 20, p. 33; file page: 44, quoted from *Dirāsāt al-Labīb*.
Polished Formulation and Main Point
Sindī says: Upon careful examination of the hadith, we see that it explicitly enjoins adherence to the Ahl al-Bayt, and that following them is like following the Qur’an. This status is an obligatory matter from God, and until they reach the Pond, nothing contrary to it will befall them. In addition, the expression “Consider how you will treat them after me” provides a stronger emphasis on adhering to both of the two weighty trusts. He then explains that one authentic hadith reveals a meaning, while another sound hadith explains that same meaning, and thus that meaning is clearly established from the Prophet.
For the second point, the entire passage can be summarized in two sentences: “اتباعهم كاتباع القرآن” and “أمر متحتّم من الله تعالى”. The first expression compares the manner of following them with following the Qur’an, while the second states its necessity and inevitability. This much is precisely in service of the author of *ʿAbaqāt*’s claim.
8. Second Witness: Muhammad Mubin Lakhnawi
Muhammad Mubin Lakhnawi was a Hanafi Sunni scholar and the author of Wasīlat al-Maʾāl. The author of ʿAbaqāt quotes a statement from him that expresses the matter explicitly in the language of obedience and submission.
“I remind you of God concerning my Ahl al-Bayt”—and he uttered this phrase three times, meaning: Fear God, observe their rights, and make obedience to and love for them your emblem and your cloak. Just as compliance with the ordinances of the Book of God is obligatory, so too obedience and submission to the commands of the Ahl al-Bayt through one’s limbs and faculties, and love for them and firm belief in them in one’s heart and soul, are obligatory and incumbent.
Source: ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 33; file page: 44, quoted from Wasīlat al-Maʾāl.
Smoothing and Main Point
Lakhnawi says: The Prophet reminded the community, invoking God, of the rights of the Ahl al-Bayt; that is, observe their rights and make obedience to and love for them your постоянный way of life. Just as acting according to the ordinances of the Book of God is obligatory, obeying and submitting to the commands of the Ahl al-Bayt in practice is likewise obligatory and incumbent, and love for and belief in them must be firmly established in the heart.
The main point concerning the second aspect is the sentence’s comparative construction: “Just as compliance with the rulings of the Book of Allah is obligatory, so too obedience to and submission to the commands of the Ahl al-Bayt ... are obligatory and incumbent.” This evidence elevates adherence beyond the level of mere love and explains it in the form of practical, binding obedience, alongside compliance with the Qur’an.
9. The Third Evidence: Rashid al-Din Khan Dehlawi
Rashid al-Din Khan Dehlawi, a Hanafi scholar and one of the students of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlawi, was situated in the context of debate with the Imamis. This intellectual proximity makes his quotation important for the author of Abaqat as an argument. However, since Abaqat omitted the continuation of the passage with “etc.,” the analysis must be confined to the portion quoted.
“Does any rational person permit that the Ahl al-Sunna, despite being adherents to the Two Weighty Things and, in accordance with the hadith, ‘Indeed, I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things,’ regard adherence to the Pure Progeny as necessary in the same way as adherence to the Qur’an ...” etc.
Source: Abaqat al-Anwar, vol. 20, p. 33; file page: 44, quoted from Idah Latafat al-Maqal.
Polished Wording and the Main Point
Rashid al-Din says: Can any rational person deny that the Sunnis adhere to the Two Weighty Things and, on the basis of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, consider adherence to the pure progeny necessary in the same manner as adherence to the Qur’an? For the purposes of the present article, this much is sufficient: a scholar from an intellectual milieu close to that of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz al-Dihlawi reports the principle of the “necessity of adhering to the progeny in the same manner as adhering to the Qur’an.” The author of Abaqat uses this statement to show that his understanding of the rank of adherence is not merely an intra-Imami expression.
10. The Position of the Three Testimonies in the Second Aspect
The three testimonies mentioned are not intended to take the place of the main argument. The main argument of the author of Abaqat begins with the hadith itself and with the way the Qur’an and the progeny are positioned in it. These citations have a confirmatory and probative function: one citation speaks of “اتباعهم كاتباع القرآن” and of a binding divine command; Lakhnawi calls obedience to the commands of the Ahl al-Bayt, like compliance with the rulings of the Qur’an, “obligatory and fard”; and Rashid al-Din reports the necessity of adhering to the progeny in the same manner as to the Qur’an. These three points are sufficient for the purpose of this aspect, and an extended discussion of the personalities or subsidiary terms would divert the article’s focus from Mir Hamid Husayn’s argument.
11. Conclusion
The second aspect of Abaqat al-Anwar can be summarized as a two-sided movement. On the affirmative side, the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things places the progeny alongside the Qur’an as one of the two weighty things and calls upon the community to adhere to both. In the hadith itself, this adherence is not restricted to any particular subject. After the first aspect clarified the guidance-oriented meaning of adherence and its relation to following and emulation, the author of Abaqat explains this same unrestrictedness through the expressions “اتباع,” “اقتفاء,” “اقتدا,” “واجبالاتباع,” and “لازمالاطاعه.” He holds that the absolute obedience and following prescribed for the progeny after the Prophet and alongside the Qur’an necessarily entail the station of imamate; for this reason, he states explicitly that those who possess such a station can be none other than the caliphs and the true imams.
On the negative side, Mir Hamid Husayn compares this position with the other claimants to the caliphate. No text of equal standing establishing adherence and obedience has been presented concerning them; they are neither the second weighty thing nor the counterpart of the Qur’an; in the author of Abaqat’s polemical argument, no claim by them to such a position has been reported, and their followers have not regarded their rulings as obligatory to follow in the same manner as the rulings of the Qur’an; and if anyone were to make such a claim, he would not possess a mutawatir hadith comparable to the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to establish it. Thus, the second aspect does not merely establish a virtue for the Ahl al-Bayt; it demonstrates the textual superiority of their position over their rivals for the caliphate.
This very point also clarifies the response of the author of ʿAbaqāt to the denial of an explicit designation concerning the imamate. If the ʿitrah in the Prophetic text is the counterpart of the Qur’an in “the Two Weighty Things” (al-Thaqalayn), and absolute adherence to it has been made obligatory upon the community, then the hadith cannot be regarded as fundamentally unrelated to the imamate. In Mir Hamid Husayn’s logic, the unqualified command to hold fast and the pairing with the Qur’an constitute an evident and manifest designation of the principle of the ʿitrah’s binding leadership and authoritative reference after the Prophet, even though establishing the other requirements and details of this imamate is, in accordance with the architecture of ʿAbaqāt, deferred to the subsequent aspects. The three Sunni testimonies are cited only to corroborate this core.
Sources and References
1. Mir Hamid Husayn al-Hindi, ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār fī Imāmat al-Aʾimma al-Aṭhār, vol. 20, the section on the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, especially pp. 25–33 (file pages: 36–44).
2. Nafahāt al-Azhār fī Khulāṣat ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 2, the section “Among the Aspects Indicating the Significance of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn,” especially p. 249 (file page: 293).
3. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Ḥasanī, al-Iʿlām bi-man fī Tārīkh al-Hind min al-Aʿlām (Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir), under the biographical entries for Muḥammad Muʿīn Sindhī, Muḥammad Mubīn Lakhnawī, and Rashīd al-Dīn Dihlawī; for brief introductions to the individuals.
4. The basis for the article’s central quotations is the text of the second aspect of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār; the quotations of the views of the three Sunni scholars are likewise presented on the basis of the quotation by the author of ʿAbaqāt.
