“Hadith al-Thaqalayn between Concealment and Scholarly Exhaustiveness: A Comparative Critique of the Methods of Abd al-Aziz al-Dahlawi and Mir Hamid Husayn in Abaqat al-Anwar”
Author: Hamed Sarem
Where has the narration been shortened, where has a contextual indication been omitted, and where has the critique of a school been constructed by concealing part of the truth? The case of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn in Tuhfa-yi Ithna Ashariyya is not merely a disagreement over interpretation; the issue is that Dehlawi, in order to invalidate the Shiʿa claim, places before the reader neither all the transmission routes of the hadith nor even the complete body of Zayd ibn Arqam’s narrations. Instead, he makes the basis of his critique a report that Abqāt al-Anwār shows does not fully correspond to any of the known forms of the narration. Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn exposes the matter precisely at this point: when effective evidence is removed and the disputed text is presented in a distorted form, the issue is no longer an academic disagreement; the researcher’s integrity and the credibility of his entire judgment are at stake.
Abstract
The Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is one of the central texts cited by the Imamiyya to establish the religious authority of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), and for this reason it became a target of criticism in ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlawi’s Tuhfa-yi Ithna Ashariyya. Before the disagreement over the hadith’s import, this study addresses the integrity of representing the hadith data. Dehlawi first restricts a hadith transmitted in Sunni sources from a large number of male and female Companions to the narration of Zayd ibn Arqam. He then fails, even within this route, to fully reflect the extended, intermediate, and concise wordings recorded in the sources. Finally, he presents a form of the hadith that, on the basis of Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s exhaustive investigation in Abqāt al-Anwār, does not fully correspond to any of the wordings reported by a wide range of Sunni hadith scholars and authorities. This study evaluates this mode of representation not merely as a difference in method, but, from the perspective of the principles of library-based research, as an instance of the effective concealment of data, tendentious abridgment, and distortion in the representation of a source. The issue is especially significant because Tuhfa-yi Ithna Ashariyya was written to criticize and refute a school; such selectivity both makes the rival’s evidence appear weaker than it really is and restricts the reader’s ability to form an independent judgment. By contrast, Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn, through collecting the transmission routes, preserving variant wordings, distinguishing long, intermediate, and concise reports, and citing sources accepted by the opponent, offers a model of immanent critique and exhaustive investigation. The article also examines the most important reports of Zayd ibn Arqam, providing the Arabic text, a Persian translation, and an independent analysis of the wording, so that the effect of omitting each passage on the hadith’s import becomes clear.
Keywords: Hadith of al-Thaqalayn; ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlawi; Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn; Abqāt al-Anwār; Zayd ibn Arqam; concealment; distortion; scholarly integrity; hadith criticism.
1. The Research Problem and the Criterion of Judgment
In library-based research focused on a limited problem, exhaustively surveying the relevant reports, distinguishing the different forms of a transmission, assessing variations in wording, and fairly representing the evidence are not “a methodological choice” among other choices; they are the binding minimum of valid research. A researcher may disagree with others in understanding and interpreting the data, but may not, before reaching the stage of interpretation, remove part of the effective data from the reader’s access and then pass judgment on a body of material that he himself has made incomplete. This requirement is weightier in a work written to criticize and refute a school, because eliminating effective evidence can reduce criticism of the “opponent’s actual argument” to criticism of a diminished and previously weakened version of it.
Accordingly, in this study the terms “concealment,” “piecemeal quotation,” “distortion in representation,” and “betrayal of scholarly trust” refer to conduct demonstrable in the text, not to a judgment about the author’s inner intention. “Concealment” is the omission of data that plays an effective role in assessing the matter under dispute; “piecemeal quotation” is the separation of passages whose removal changes the semantic field of the portion that remains; and “distortion in representation” consists in presenting a text as the wording of a transmitted report when it does not correspond to the wording established in the sources that ought to substantiate it. When these three forms of conduct occur one-sidedly, and in the direction of weakening the opposing evidence, in order to invalidate a school of thought, the issue is no longer merely a “methodological weakness”; rather, it involves a violation of scholarly trust in representing the other side’s evidence.
The basis of judgment in this article is also of particular importance. The principal body of evidence that Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn employs in criticizing al-Dahlawi is drawn not from sources specific to the Imami tradition, but from the works of Sunni hadith transmitters, hadith masters, and scholars. The issue, therefore, is not the imposition of Shi‘i hadith principles upon al-Dahlawi; rather, the question is what al-Dahlawi did with the data available in the hadith tradition that he himself accepted. In this respect, the critique in Abaqat al-Anwar is internal to the framework: al-Dahlawi is assessed not by an external standard, but by the very heritage that he himself, when arguing, ought to acknowledge.
To make precise review of the claims possible, the printed page number and the PDF page number are provided in the references to Abaqat al-Anwar; where Nafahat al-Azhar is used, both numbers are likewise given. It should be emphasized that the primary source of the present analysis is Abaqat al-Anwar, while Nafahat serves here to summarize, organize, and facilitate access to its arguments.
This version has an important advantage: it transforms the critique from “al-Dahlawi was bad” into a demonstrable methodological indictment. It first clarifies the criterion and then, in the subsequent sections, examines the instances of concealment, piecemeal quotation, and verbal non-correspondence one by one against that same criterion.
2. Al-Dahlawi’s Text and the Beginning of the Issue: Is What Has Been Quoted Really an Authenticated “Quotation”?
Abd al-Aziz al-Dahlawi cites the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things—as reported by Abaqat al-Anwar—from Zayd ibn Arqam with the following wording:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you the two weighty things: so long as you hold fast to them, you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other: the Book of God and my progeny.”
Translation: “I am leaving among you two precious things; if you hold fast to them, you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other: the Book of God and my progeny.”
Even in this brief expression, two important elements remain: the obligation to hold fast to the Book and the progeny, and the connection between this adherence and immunity from misguidance. Yet before any discussion of the hadith’s meaning, there is a more preliminary question: In which hadith source does this expression, with this exact combination and arrangement of words, appear?
The answer given by ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār to this question marks the starting point of a serious objection to Dehlawi’s manner of transmission. After collecting and collating a broad range of chains and wordings of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things—especially the various forms of Zayd ibn Arqam’s narration—Mīrzā Sayyid Ḥāmid Ḥusayn explicitly states that the wording Dehlawi cited as a hadith does not correspond to any of the forms transmitted by that extensive body of hadith scholars and ḥadīth حافظs. Nafahāt al-Azhār formulates the result of this investigation explicitly as follows:
“The incompatibility of this cited wording with any of the wordings of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in the narrations of these حافظs and hadith authorities.”
That is: the wording mentioned by Dehlawi does not correspond to any of the wordings of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in the narrations of these حافظs and hadith authorities.
This point changes the nature of the issue. If Dihlawi had selected one of the brief transmissions of the hadith while preserving the exact wording of the source, it would have been possible to discuss why he chose that form and set aside the more complete transmissions. However, the objection raised by Abqāt al-Anwār is more fundamental: the wording on which Dihlawi bases his argument is not found in this form anywhere within the broad range of sources examined. Even the abbreviated transmissions of Zayd ibn Arqam—which could have provided the most suitable basis for Dihlawi’s abbreviation—contain passages absent from his wording.
For this reason, the issue is not merely “abridgment.” Abridgment is a legitimate scholarly practice when the shortened text remains faithful to a known transmission. But if a phrase is presented as a hadith and that same phrase cannot be shown in the source on which the report is based, its credibility as a verbatim transmission becomes seriously questionable. In such a situation, it is the transmitter’s duty either to identify the precise source of this wording or to state explicitly that the phrase is his own paraphrase or summary.
Dihlawi offers no such explanation and directly attributes the wording to the Prophet through Zayd ibn Arqam. Therefore, until an independent source for this verbal combination is produced, it cannot unconditionally be called “one of the wordings of Zayd’s report.” Within the criteria of this study, this conduct goes beyond a simple selection and gives rise to the problem of distortion in the representation of the source: the reader is confronted with a text presented as a “hadith,” whereas a comprehensive examination of the sources shows that the form presented does not correspond to the established wording found in the sources examined.
The importance of this issue becomes clearer when, in the following sections, the extensive, intermediate, and brief transmissions of Zayd ibn Arqam himself are examined one by one. There it becomes possible to see that what has been left out of Dihlawi’s report is not merely peripheral detail; some of these passages directly expand the hadith’s field of signification. Thus, the central question is not only what Dihlawi “transmitted,” but also what he did not transmit, and what effect their omission had on the picture of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things that the reader receives.
3. The First Concealment: Reducing a Broad Transmission Tradition to the Report of Zayd ibn Arqam
The first objection in Abqāt al-Anwār has not yet reached the اختلاف in the wording of Zayd ibn Arqam’s report; the problem occurs at an earlier stage: Dihlawi portrays the range of transmissions of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things as though this hadith were essentially discussed in the form of Zayd ibn Arqam’s report. Yet Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s exhaustive investigation presents an entirely different picture. Nafahāt al-Azhār, in summarizing this investigation, lists the names of thirty-four male and female Companions from whom the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things was reported, and explicitly writes at the end: «رواة هذا الحديث الشريف من الصحابة والصحابيات ... أربعة وثلاثون». This collection includes names such as the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī (peace be upon him), Imam al-Hasan, Salman, Abū Dharr, Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, Hudhayfa ibn Usayd, Zayd ibn Thābit, Abū Hurayra, Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī, Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ (peace be upon her), Umm Salama, and Umm Hāniʾ.
The importance of this list lies not merely in the number “thirty-four.” For a significant portion of these Companions, the author of Abaqat also names the Sunni hadith scholars and hadith masters who recorded their reports; that is, instead of making a general claim about the “multiplicity of chains,” he places before the reader a traceable network of transmitters, compilers, and sources. This method makes independent verification possible and shows that the matter does not concern an isolated report or a narration confined to a single chain.
Nor is this picture merely the claim of the author of Abaqat. Sunni scholars themselves have affirmed the multiplicity of the hadith’s chains: after narrating the hadith, al-Tirmidhi recalls reports from Abu Dharr, Abu Saʿid, Zayd ibn Arqam, and Hudhayfah ibn Usayd; al-Sakhawi mentions a more extensive list of Companions; al-Samhudi speaks of the hadith being transmitted from more than twenty Companions; and Ibn Hajar likewise explicitly states that it has numerous chains through more than twenty Companions.
In such circumstances, the issue is no longer an “authorial abridgment.” Dehlawi is not speaking as a neutral reporter of a historical hadith; he is evaluating, in a book written to criticize and refute the Imami argument, one of his rival’s principal proofs. In such a context, the breadth of the hadith’s transmission is part of the very data being judged. Omitting that breadth directly changes the weight the hadith carries in the reader’s mind: a hadith that was in fact reported through multiple chains and by a considerable number of Companions appears, in the setting of disputation, as a report dependent on a single Companion. This change in the frame of presentation is not neutral; before the proof is even criticized, it makes it appear smaller than its actual size.
It is here that the concept of “concealment of consequential data” acquires a concrete meaning. Concealment does not necessarily mean explicitly denying the existence of other chains; sometimes it is enough to omit, from the representation, data that directly bears on evaluating the strength of an argument, in such a way that the reader cannot see the actual weight of the evidence. According to the account presented by Abaqat, that is precisely what has happened here: a broad transmission tradition has, in the course of criticism, been reduced to a single chain.
Even if, in defense of Dehlawi, one assumes that he intended merely to make the “narration of Zayd ibn Arqam” the subject of examination, this assumption does not solve the problem. In that case, the minimum scholarly expectation would have been first to announce this restriction explicitly and then to examine fairly the principal forms of that very narration of Zayd—extended, intermediate, and abridged. Yet Abaqat shows precisely that the problem was repeated even within that scope: Dehlawi not only sets aside the breadth of the hadith’s transmitters, but also fails to give the reader a complete picture of the narrations of Zayd ibn Arqam themselves.
For this reason, reducing the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to Zayd ibn Arqam cannot be regarded as a peripheral defect in the report; it is the first link in a chain that is completed later by omitting the extended, intermediate, and even the firmly attested abridged forms transmitted from that same Zayd ibn Arqam. The central criticism begins here: Dehlawi first narrows the scope of the narration and then, within that already narrowed scope, further reduces the range of its wording. Together, these two stages construct an image of the hadith that stands at a serious distance from the documented reality of its transmission tradition.
4. The Second Concealment: Even through the Chain of Zayd ibn Arqam, the Complete Text Was Not Made Available to the Reader
If reducing the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn to the narration of Zayd ibn Arqam constitutes the first stage of restricting the data, the second stage occurs within this very chain. ‘Abaqat al-Anwar shows that al-Dihlawi, after setting aside the broad range of transmitters of the hadith, does not even present the collection of Zayd ibn Arqam’s narrations to the reader. Nafahat al-Azhar formulates this objection explicitly, stating that after attributing the hadith to Zayd, al-Dihlawi turns to “the briefest wording of Zayd’s hadith” and evaluates this selection as intended to conceal part of the virtues and implications pertaining to the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them).
The significance of Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s response lies in the fact that he does not settle for citing a single, more complete narration. He organizes Zayd’s transmitted reports into three categories according to the length and detail of the text: विस्तृत wordings, medium wordings, and brief wordings. In the विस्तृत reports, in addition to the basic introduction of the Book and the Progeny, there appear the circumstances in which the hadith was issued, the approaching death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the question posed to the community about how it would treat the two weighty things, their non-separation until they arrive at the Pool, and, in some chains, the direct connection between the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the proclamation of Ali’s authority. In the medium reports, expressions such as “Do not precede them, lest you perish” and “Do not teach them, for they are more learned than you” are also found; these move the addressee’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt beyond mere affection into the sphere of following, their not being subject to precedence, and scholarly authority.
The most important test for justifying al-Dihlawi’s conduct, however, is provided by the brief reports. If it can be said that he dispensed with the long and medium reports out of a need for brevity, then one would at least expect him to have cited one of the concise, firmly established forms of the hadith exactly as it appears in the sources. Yet Nafahat, immediately after presenting the brief wordings, asks why al-Dihlawi did not include even one of these forms and instead offered a wording upon which the marks of “cutting off and omission” are evident. It then cites the narration of al-Tirmidhi from Zayd ibn Arqam:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray after me. One of the two is greater than the other: the Book of God, a rope extended from heaven to earth, and my progeny, the People of my House. They will never separate until they come to me at the Pool. So consider how you will succeed me with regard to them.”
Translation: “I am leaving among you something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray after me. One of the two is greater than the other: the Book of God, a rope extended from heaven to earth, and my progeny, the People of my House; these two will never separate from one another until they come to me beside the Pool. So consider how you will treat them after me.” Al-Tirmidhi regarded this narration as “hasan gharib.”
This brief transmission is sufficient to make the issue clear. Dahlawi’s wording preserves the opening part of the hadith—“adherence” and “non-going astray”—but three important qualifications present in this abbreviated version do not appear in his report: “my progeny, the People of my House,” “they will never separate until they come to me at the Pond,” and “so consider how you will succeed me with regard to them.” Therefore, the difference is not merely one of the length of the narration; some of the hadith’s semantic elements have been omitted in the process of abridgment.
Another abridged transmission mentioned in the same collection even uses the expression “two successors”:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of God, an extended rope between heaven and earth, and my progeny, the People of my House; and indeed, the two will never separate until they come to me at the Pond.”
“I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of God, a rope stretched between heaven and earth, and my progeny, the People of my House; and these two will not separate from one another until they come to me at the Pond.”
Another abbreviated version, in addition to the Book and the People of the House, directly links guidance and misguidance to following or abandoning what has come from the Book, and once again emphasizes that the People of the House and the Book will not separate until the Pond.
Consequently, a defense based on “abridgment” encounters a fundamental problem: even the documented abbreviated transmissions are richer than Dahlawi’s wording and have preserved precisely those qualifications that play a semantic role in determining the relationship of the community to the People of the House. If the omission resulted solely from brevity, one would expect the abridged version still to be one of the recognized wordings of the hadith; however, what al-‘Abaqat and Nafahat report goes beyond mere shortening: on the one hand, parts of the narration’s semantic structure have been omitted, and on the other, the resulting wording does not fully correspond to any of the numerous versions examined.
Thus, Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s threefold division is not merely a formal classification; it is a methodological test for assessing the accuracy of al-Dihlawi’s representation. The detailed reports show how much of the hadith’s context and evidentiary indications has been omitted; the medium-length reports show that the omissions directly concern the elements of adherence and authority; and the brief reports close even the last avenue of defense, because they prove that shortening the narration did not require setting aside those essential qualifications.
In what follows, each of these narrations must be analyzed independently and in its own wording, without importing expressions from one chain into another. One must first ask what each text, by itself, says and what interpretive capacity it possesses; then, at the comparative stage, clarify which shared elements recur across the family of narrations and which elements have disappeared from al-Dihlawi’s report. This method both prevents the artificial conflation of texts and makes it possible to demonstrate, with documentation, the precise effect of each omission on the meaning of the hadith.
5. The Lengthy Wordings of Zayd ibn Arqam’s Narration
5.1. al-Nasa’i’s Narration from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu al-Tufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam
One of the most important lengthy reports from Zayd ibn Arqam that Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn sets against al-Dihlawi’s account is a narration that al-Nasa’i records in al-Khasa’is from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu al-Tufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam. Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi also includes the same meaning, with variations in some wording, in al-Mustadrak. The importance of this narration lies not merely in its greater length; its principal importance is that it preserves passages alongside the core of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things that directly affect the determination of the hadith’s meaning, yet no trace of them appears in al-Dihlawi’s report.
“When the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his Family, returned and reached Ghadir Khumm, he ordered that the trees be cleared. Then he said: ‘It is as though I have been summoned and have answered the summons, and I have left among you the Two Weighty Things, one of which is greater than the other: the Book of Allah and my progeny, the People of my House. So consider how you will succeed me with regard to them, for they will never separate until they come to me at the Pond.’ Then he said: ‘Indeed, Allah is my Master, and I am the guardian of every believer.’ Then he took Ali’s hand and said: ‘Whoever’s guardian I am, this is his guardian. O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and oppose whoever opposes him.’” Abu al-Tufayl said: “I said to Zayd: ‘Did you hear it from the Messenger of Allah?’ He replied: ‘Yes; there was no one among the trees except that he saw him with his own eyes and heard him with his own ears.’”
Translation: “When the Messenger of God (PBUH) returned and alighted at Ghadir Khumm, he ordered that the area beneath several trees be cleared. Then he said: It seems that I have been summoned, and I shall answer the call. I am leaving among you two weighty things, one of which is greater than the other: the Book of God and my progeny, my أهل بيتي. So look how you treat them after me, for they will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool. Then he said: God is my master, and I am the wali of every believer. Then he took Ali by the hand and said: Whoever I am his wali, this Ali is his wali; O God, love whoever loves him and hate whoever shows him enmity.” Abu al-Tufayl says: “I asked Zayd: Did you yourself hear these words from the Messenger of God? He said: Yes; there was no one in that grove except that he saw it with his own eyes and heard it with his own ears.”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Narration
The first determining element is the expression «كأنّي دُعيت فأجبت». The Prophet (PBUH) begins his speech with a clear allusion to the approaching end of his life. Therefore, «تركت فيكم» was not uttered in a vacuum; it occurs within the context of farewell and of determining what would remain among the community after the Prophet. This context does not allow the hadith to be understood merely as a general recommendation to respect relatives. It speaks of that for which the Prophet, on the threshold of his departure, makes the community responsible.
Second, the text does not say only «عترتي»; rather, it explicitly says: «عترتي أهل بيتي». Within this structure, «أهل بيتي» explains and specifies «عترتي». Thus, omitting it is not merely shortening the phrase; it removes part of the narration’s own interpretive mechanism. Dehlawi set aside precisely the phrase by which the text clarifies the designation of the progeny for the audience.
Third, the command «فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما» is one of the most important components of the narration. The Prophet does not ask his audience merely to hold fast to the Book and show affection toward the progeny; the dual pronoun «فيهما» makes both weighty things the subject of inquiry and responsibility. Syntactically, the Qur’an and the progeny are placed under one and the same object of address. Therefore, any interpretation that treats one as the subject of guidance and the other merely as the subject of affection must explain on what basis it separates this explicit commonality in address and responsibility between them.
Fourth, the sentence «فإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض» does not restrict the connection between the Book and the progeny to a particular historical period. The narration speaks of their not separating until they come to the Prophet at the Pool. The minimum certain implication of this statement is the استمرار of the companionship of the Qur’an and the progeny within the community. The Imami argument concerning the authority and probative force of the Ahl al-Bayt begins from this enduring connection; for if adherence to both is connected with guidance, and the two do not separate from one another until the end, reducing the status of the progeny to mere familial respect does not suffice to explain all these qualifications together.
Fifth, and perhaps the most sensitive point for Dehlavi’s critique, is the immediate connection between the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the proclamation of ʿAlī’s authority. After speaking about the Book and the عترت, the Prophet says: «إن الله مولاي وأنا ولي كل مؤمن» (“Indeed, God is my Master, and I am the master of every believer”), then takes ʿAlī’s hand and says: «من كنت وليه فهذا وليه» (“Whoever considers me his master, this is his master”). Even if a researcher disagrees with the Imāmiyya over the precise meaning of “walī” or the scope of its signification, he cannot escape a methodological obligation: these two passages occur together in a single report and at a single gathering, and this proximity is itself an interpretive datum.
Consequently, when Dehlavi, after removing these indicators, declares that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is not necessarily connected to “supreme leadership,” the problem lies not only in his conclusion; part of the data that should have been examined before reaching that conclusion was never presented to the reader at all. Disagreement over the meaning of an indicator is a scholarly matter; removing the indicator and then denying a signification that may arise from it is another matter altogether.
Sixth, the ending of the report possesses independent hadith value. Abū al-Ṭufayl does not settle for Zayd’s ordinary narration; he asks him: «سمعته من رسول الله؟» (“Did you hear it from the Messenger of God?”). Zayd not only confirms that he heard it directly, but also adds that those present at the event saw it with their eyes and heard it with their ears. This emphasis does not leave the report as an ambiguous memory or an indirect transmission; rather, it stresses the narrator’s sensory testimony concerning the event.
Summary of the First Transmission
Without requiring the addition of any wording from other transmission routes, this report itself contains a meaningful set of indicators: the context of the Prophet’s approaching death, the introduction of the عترت under the title of Ahl al-Bayt, the community’s responsibility toward both weighty trusts, the non-separation of the Qur’an and the عترت, and the direct connection of this statement with ʿAlī’s authority.
The essential point in criticizing Dehlavi is not that he was obliged to cite the longest version available; the matter is far more serious: what was omitted from his report is not a random collection of narrative details. Nearly all the omissions occur precisely where the text moves beyond a general recommendation and gives greater prominence to the community’s relationship with Ahl al-Bayt. It is this alignment among the omissions that makes the hypothesis of “neutral abridgment” difficult to sustain.
From the perspective of textual criticism, an omission may be accidental or caused by abbreviation. However, when the farewell context, “my Ahl al-Bayt,” “how you will succeed me with regard to them,” “they will never separate,” and the connection of the hadith to ʿAlī’s authority are all removed from the final presentation, and the product of these omissions is precisely a text whose argumentative force is diminished, we are no longer dealing with a simple abridgment. Here, the question of scholarly integrity arises with full force: Why is what has been omitted almost always precisely what is more important for understanding the rival’s claim?
5–2. Al-Ḥākim’s Narration from Salama ibn Kuhayl: “Following” the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt as the Condition for Avoiding Misguidance
The second extensive transmission from Zayd ibn Arqam cited in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār is a narration that al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī reports from Salama ibn Kuhayl, from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam. The significance of this narration lies in the fact that it describes the relationship of the community to the Ahl al-Bayt not with an expression reducible to love and veneration, but with the explicit word “following”:
“O people! I am leaving among you two matters; you will never go astray if you follow them, and they are: the Book of God and my Ahl al-Bayt, my progeny. Then he said: Do you know that I have greater authority over the believers than they have over themselves? — three times — They said: Yes. The Messenger of God, God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his family, then said: Whoever I am his master, ʿAlī is his master.”
Translation: “O people! I am leaving among you two things which, if you follow them, you will never go astray: the Book of God and my Ahl al-Bayt, my progeny. Then he said: Do you know that I have greater authority over the believers than they have over themselves? — three times — They said: Yes. Thereupon the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: Whoever I am his master, ʿAlī is his master.”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Narration
The crux of this report is the expression «إِنِ اتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمَا». In Arabic usage, «اتباع» means to follow and pursue, and without contextual evidence it cannot be reduced to mere love, respect, or observance of sanctity. There may be disagreement concerning the scope and effects of this following; however, the basic indication of the word as signifying following cannot be eliminated by replacing it with concepts such as affection and honoring.
More importantly, the verb «اتبعتم» is connected to the dual pronoun «هما». The object of this following is also specified immediately: «كتاب الله وأهل بيتي عترتي». Thus, the syntactic structure of the report places the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt under a single ruling and links following both of them to freedom from misguidance. Here the issue is no longer merely the juxtaposition of the «Book» and the «Itrat»; the very verb that determines the audience’s relationship to the two appears in the dual form.
This point is fundamentally important for criticizing Dehlavi’s minimalist interpretation. If the hadith merely contained a recommendation to observe the sanctity of the Ahl al-Bayt, it must be explained why the Prophet (peace be upon him) linked protection from misguidance to «اتباع» them alongside the Book of God. Transforming such a structure into an emotional recommendation is no longer a straightforward interpretation of the wording; it requires moving beyond the apparent indication of the very word chosen by the report.
The expression «لن تضلوا إن اتبعتموهما» is also important in terms of its argumentative structure. In the report, freedom from misguidance is a result that follows from observing the two matters. Therefore, the Itrat is not a ceremonial element placed alongside the Qur’an; in the relationship that the hadith establishes between «following» and «guidance», both are situated within a single structure. This proves, at the very least, that the position of the Ahl al-Bayt in this report cannot, without an independent argument, be reduced to the «obligation of love».
But the report does not end at this point. Immediately after introducing the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt as the two objects of following, the Prophet (peace be upon him) asks three times:
«أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ؟»
And after eliciting the audience’s acknowledgment, he says:
“Whoever I am his mawla, then ʿAlī is his mawla.”
This sequence is a textual reality that must be recognized before any theological dispute over the ultimate meaning of “mawla.” Within this very report, the reference to adherence to the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt, the question of the Prophet’s priority over the believers above their own selves, and then the proclamation of ʿAlī’s mawla status appear one after another. Therefore, any researcher who seeks to deny the connection between the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the issue of authority and leadership is first obliged to explain this intratextual connection, rather than present an abridged version of the hadith in which these evidentiary indications are altogether absent.
It is precisely at this point that the objection to Dehlawi’s method becomes more compelling. After quoting a reduced form of the hadith, he says that it is not necessary for “that which is to be held fast to” (متمسَّکٌبه) to be the possessor of supreme authority; yet in one of the transmissions by that same Zayd ibn Arqam, to whom he himself restricted the hadith, the relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt is expressed through “adherence” (اتباع), and immediately thereafter the phrases “more entitled to the believers than their own selves” (أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم) and “ʿAlī is his mawla” (فعلي مولاه) are mentioned.
Thus, the issue is not merely that Dehlawi disagrees with the indication of the report. He is entitled, after presenting the hadith in full, to debate the implications of “adherence” (اتباع), “more entitled” (أولى), and “mawla” (مولى); but he has no right to remove from the argument the datum that lies precisely at the center of the dispute and then, on the basis of an abridged text, conclude that the hadith has no connection with authority and leadership. Disagreement over interpretation after the complete evidence has been presented is a scholarly dispute; deleting the effective evidence before interpretation is a matter of scholarly integrity.
Summary of the Second Transmission
This report, even if read entirely independently of the other transmission routes, provides three clear pieces of information: adherence to the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt through a dual pronoun; the connection of this adherence with protection from misguidance; and its linkage to the question of the Prophet’s precedence and the proclamation of ʿAlī’s authority (wilāya).
Accordingly, this report is one of the most difficult pieces of evidence for an interpretation that regards the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn) merely as a recommendation to love the Prophet’s family. The simple yet decisive question is: if the position of the ʿitrah in the ḥadīth is anything beyond honoring and loving them, how should “if you follow them both” (إِنِ اتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمَا) be understood?
And for the critique of Dehlawi, the question is sharper still: why, in a work written to refute the Imāmī argument, was a text from the reports of that same Zayd ibn Arqam—one that explicitly makes “following the Ahl al-Bayt” a condition for avoiding misguidance—removed from the reader’s field of vision? This is no longer the omission of a marginal narrative; it is the omission of a statement that lies directly at the heart of the disputed claim.
5–3. Ibn al-Maghāzilī’s Extended Sermon: From the Ummah’s Accountability Regarding the Two Weighty Things to the Proclamation of ʿAlī’s Authority
The third extended report from Zayd ibn Arqam is a sermon that ʿAbqāt al-Anwār quotes from Ibn al-Maghāzilī, versions of which are also reflected in some other sources. The importance of this report lies in the fact that it does not present the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things as an isolated sentence; rather, it places it within a continuous structure encompassing the imminence of the Prophet’s departure, the responsibility of the ummah, the definition of the Two Weighty Things, the determination of how to treat the ʿitrah, and finally the proclamation of ʿAlī’s authority. ʿAbqāt also reports differences in some wordings and manuscript versions; therefore, the analysis must distinguish between the common substance of the report and minor variant readings.
“Behold, I am your forerunner, and you are to follow me; you will soon come to me at the Pool. I shall then ask you, when you meet me, about my two weighty things: how did you succeed me with regard to them? … A man from the Emigrants stood and said: ‘May my father and mother be ransomed for you, O Prophet of God, what are the two weighty things?’ He said: ‘The greater of them is the Book of God Most High: a rope, one end of which is in God’s hand and the other in your hands. So hold fast to it, and do not slip or go astray; and the lesser of them is my ʿitrah … Do not kill them, do not turn against them [in some wordings: do not subjugate them], and do not fall short of them … Whoever supports them supports me; whoever abandons them abandons me; whoever is their ally is my ally; and whoever is their enemy is my enemy …’ Then he took ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s hand, raised it, and said: ‘For whoever I am his master, this man is his master; whoever I am his wali, this man is his wali. O God, befriend whoever befriends him and oppose whoever opposes him.’”
Translation: “Behold, I shall arrive at the Pool ahead of you, and you will come after me. It is almost time for you to come upon me; then I shall ask you about my two weighty things: how did you deal with them after me? … A man from the Emigrants rose and said: ‘May my father and mother be your ransom, O Messenger of God; what are the two weighty things?’ He said: ‘The greater of the two is the Book of God: a rope, one end of which is in God’s hand and the other in your hands. So hold fast to it, lest you slip and go astray; and the smaller weighty thing is my progeny … Do not kill them, transgress against them, or overpower them, and do not fall short regarding them [and, according to the implication of some wordings, do not lag behind them] … Whoever supports them supports me; whoever abandons them abandons me; whoever befriends them befriends me, and whoever is hostile to them is hostile to me …’ Then he took the hand of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, raised it, and said: ‘Whoever I am his master, this ʿAlī is his master; and whoever I am his guardian, this ʿAlī is his guardian. O God, love whoever loves him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.’”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Report
The first salient element is the sentence «فأسألكم حين تلقوني عن ثقلي كيف خلفتموني فيهما». In this report, the community’s relationship to the Two Weighty Things is not merely the subject of an ethical recommendation; it is presented as a matter of accountability before the Prophet. Upon arriving at the Pool, the community must explain how it treated the “two weighty things” after the Prophet. The dual pronoun «فيهما» likewise places both of them within the sphere of this responsibility.
This structure raises a serious question for an interpretation that confines the status of the progeny to mere love and veneration. If one of the two weighty things is merely the object of love, while the other is the object of guidance and obedience, it must be explained why the Prophet placed both within a single question, a single responsibility, and a dual pronoun. The difference in rank between the Book and the progeny—“the greater” and “the lesser”—does not eliminate the unity of the structure of responsibility toward them.
Second, through the explicit question «ما الثقلان؟», the report itself interprets the term “the Two Weighty Things.” The Book of God is introduced as “the greater weighty thing,” and the progeny as “the lesser weighty thing.” Accordingly, in this text the progeny are not an emotional addition on the margins of discourse about the Qur’an; they are one of the two subjects that the Prophet leaves among the community under the shared designation “weighty thing,” and about whose treatment he will ask.
Third, the commands concerning the progeny have an independent significance:
“So do not kill them, transgress against them [or subjugate them], nor fall short with regard to them.”
A textual variation in some of these expressions does not prevent us from seeing the common core of their meaning: the community has no right to adopt toward the Prophet’s progeny a course of killing, transgression, domination, or neglect. In particular, “ولا تقصروا عنهم” suggests a relationship extending beyond a merely emotional recommendation; at the very least, it prohibits falling short with respect to their rights and status, and in the stronger reading it may also indicate lagging behind them. From the standpoint of scholarly method, the scope of this indication is open to debate; however, deleting the substance of these commands and then reducing the hadith to a recommendation concerning respect for the Ahl al-Bayt is indefensible.
Fourth, the phrase:
“Whoever supports them supports me; whoever abandons them abandons me; whoever is their ally is my ally; and whoever is their enemy is my enemy.”
The addressee’s relationship to the Two Weighty Things is directly linked to his relationship with the person of the Prophet. Support and abandonment, allegiance and hostility toward the two are not ineffectual or merely ceremonial within this structure; the Prophet connects them with support, abandonment, allegiance, and enmity toward himself. Thus, the report establishes a normative and binding relationship with the Two Weighty Things, and reducing it to mere familial veneration requires additional evidence.
Fifth, the sermon once again concludes with the proclamation of ʿAlī’s wilayah:
“Whoever I am his master, this is his master; and whoever I am his wali, this is his wali.”
This point becomes more significant because the connection between the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the wilayah of Ali is not found in only one transmission; the same juxtaposition also appears in the preceding narration of al-Hakim. Repetition of this structure increases its weight as contextual evidence. Of course, repeating a piece of evidence by itself does not resolve all theological debates concerning the meaning of “mawla”; yet the relationship between al-Thaqalayn and wilayah can no longer be excluded from the realm of signification without any examination.
Here Dehlawi’s critique moves beyond the level of interpretive disagreement. He ultimately claims that adhering to someone does not necessarily entail his “supreme leadership”; yet one of the texts transmitted from that same Zayd ibn Arqam places the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn in a gathering whose conclusion is the taking of Ali’s hand and the proclamation, “Whoever I am his mawla, this is his mawla.” In such a situation, scholarly method required that this evidence first be presented in full and that its indication of supreme leadership then be debated.
In Dehlawi’s presentation, however, the contextual evidence is removed from the scene, and a conclusion is then offered that the very existence of this evidence could have made the subject of serious dispute. This is precisely the central deficiency: Dehlawi did not merely disagree with a Shiite interpretation; he stripped the text that should have been the object of interpretation of some of its effective contextual evidence before reaching the stage of interpretation. The result is a judgment about the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, but based on a picture that does not place all the relevant data concerning the matter under judgment before the reader.
Summary of the Third Transmission
This narration, independently of the other transmission routes, presents the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn within a coherent structure: the proximity of arrival at the Pond, the community’s being questioned about al-Thaqalayn, the definition of the Book and the Progeny, explicit prohibitions concerning conduct toward the Progeny, the connection between one’s position toward al-Thaqalayn and one’s position toward the Prophet, and finally the proclamation of Ali’s wilayah.
Therefore, omitting this narration in the context of denying the hadith’s connection with leadership is not the omission of a superfluous historical detail; it is setting aside part of the primary evidentiary material for judgment. Dehlawi could have cited these indications and rejected their import; in that case, the dispute would have been a scholarly one over interpretation. But when the effective indications are fundamentally absent from the picture presented to the reader, the dispute moves one step backward: has the rival evidence, before being criticized, been faithfully represented in the same form in which it exists in the sources?
In this transmission, the answer of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār to this question is clearly negative. And this makes the critique more difficult for Dehlawi: the problem is not merely that he drew a different conclusion from the available data; the problem is that his reader essentially never had the opportunity to see all the data that could have challenged that conclusion.
6. The Intermediate Wording of the Zayd ibn Arqam Narration
6.1. al-Ṭabarānī’s Transmission as Reported by al-Suyūṭī: Prohibition against Preceding the Two Weighty Things and Explicit Declaration of the ʿItrah’s Superior Knowledge
Among the intermediate wordings of the Zayd ibn Arqam narration, this report occupies a special position in terms of its implication, because, without the details of the lengthy sermons, it preserves three components together: the continued association of the Qur’an and the ʿitrah, the prohibition against preceding the Two Weighty Things, and an explicit declaration of the ʿitrah’s scholarly superiority over the addressees. These three components directly conflict with a reading that reduces the position of the Ahl al-Bayt in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to love and honor.
“Indeed, I shall precede you, and you will come to me at the Pool; so look how you will succeed me regarding the Two Weighty Things. It was said: What are the Two Weighty Things, O Messenger of God? He said: The greater is the Book of God, Mighty and Majestic; one end is in God’s hand and the other end is in your hands. Hold fast to it; you will not slip away or go astray. And the lesser is my progeny, and they will never separate until they come to me at the Pool. I asked my Lord for that concerning them. So do not precede them, lest you perish, and do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”
Translation: “I will arrive at the Pond before you, and you will arrive before me; so consider how you will treat the two weighty things after me. They asked: O Messenger of God, what are the two weighty things? He said: The greater weighty thing is the Book of God, Mighty and Majestic; it is a rope, one end of which is in the hand of God and the other end in your hands. So hold fast to it, lest you slip and go astray. The lesser weighty thing is my progeny; these two will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pond, and I have asked my Lord that this companionship remain for them. So do not precede them, lest you perish, and do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Narration
First, the narration once again, through the phrase «فانظروا كيف تخلفوني في الثقلين», makes both weighty things the subject of the community’s responsibility after the Prophet. The text itself then, in response to «ما الثقلان؟», identifies the referents of the two: the Book of God and the progeny. Thus, from the very beginning of the narration, the progeny is not placed on the margins of the Book; rather, it is one of the two matters concerning which the Prophet focused on the community’s future conduct.
Second, the phrase «وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض» speaks of the continuing bond between the Book and the progeny. The dual pronoun «هما» refers back to those same two weighty things and extends their non-separation until the Pond. This passage alone does not establish all the theological conclusions of Imami Shiism, but it clearly establishes one fact: in this narration, the relationship of the progeny to the Book is not portrayed as temporary or ceremonial. Any interpretation that regards the progeny merely as an object of familial respect must explain what role the continuation of their non-separation from the Book plays in the structure of the hadith.
The climax of the narration, however, lies in the final two commands:
«فَلَا تَقَدَّمُوهُمَا فَتَهْلِكُوا»
That is: “Do not get ahead of the two of them, lest you perish.”
Here too, “هما” is dual and refers back to the two weighty things. The prohibition against getting ahead of them, accompanied by the threat “فتَهلكوا” (“lest you perish”), is not a merely ceremonial or light ethical recommendation. The text speaks of a kind of precedence whose consequence is destruction. Exactly what domain this “precedence” encompasses—scholarly, religious, practical, or even the question of leadership—is the subject of the subsequent analysis; but before any interpretation, the basic prohibition against getting ahead of the two weighty things must be present in the hadith’s evidentiary record.
After that, the pronoun changes in a meaningful way:
“وَلَا تُعَلِّمُوهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَعْلَمُ مِنْكُمْ.” (“Do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”)
Here “هما” is no longer used; instead, the plural rational pronoun “هم” appears. The address therefore specifically concerns the Ahl al-Bayt: “Do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.” This shift in pronoun is highly significant from the standpoint of syntactic analysis. The narration first says, with regard to both weighty things, “Do not get ahead of the two of them,” and then says specifically about the Ahl al-Bayt: “Do not teach them anything, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”
The explanation “فإنهم أعلم منكم” is also very explicit. The prohibition against teaching the Ahl al-Bayt is justified by their superior knowledge relative to those being addressed. Thus, the scholarly standing of the Ahl al-Bayt in this text is not the product of a remote inference; the narration itself states the epistemic relationship between the Ahl al-Bayt and the community. One may subsequently discuss the scope of this superior knowledge or its theological consequences, but reducing such a position to merely “the obligation to love the Ahl al-Bayt” is not compatible with the apparent meaning of the text.
It is precisely here that the problem with Dehlavi’s report becomes more pronounced. In the version of the hadith he presents, there is neither “لا تقدموهما,” nor “ولا تعلموهم,” nor “فإنهم أعلم منكم.” These are not peripheral expressions whose omission merely reduces the length of the hadith; all three directly bear on determining the nature of the community’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt. One forbids putting them ahead, another prevents the community from assuming the position of teacher in relation to the Ahl al-Bayt, and the third identifies the reason as the superior knowledge of the Ahl al-Bayt.
From the standpoint of scholarly criticism, the force of the objection raised in ʿAbaqāt lies precisely at this point. If a single expression had been omitted, one might attribute it to abridgment; but when, in the process of representing the hadith, the very passages that enhance its evidentiary significance concerning the status of the Ahl al-Bayt are repeatedly left out, we encounter a consistent pattern of data omission. There is no need to ascribe an inner intention to the author; the observable external result is sufficient: a hadith whose source contains a prohibition against putting others ahead and an explicit statement of the Ahl al-Bayt’s superior knowledge has, in Dehlavi’s report, been stripped of both components.
Summary of the Fourth Transmission
This medium-length narration alone brings together three weighty propositions: the non-separation of the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt; a prohibition against taking precedence over the Two Weighty Things, accompanied by a warning of perdition; and an explicit statement that the Ahl al-Bayt possess greater knowledge than those addressed. Thus, there is no need to cite lengthy sermons in order to perceive the hadith’s evidentiary force.
From this point, the question concerning Dehlavi’s reading becomes more serious: if the Ahl al-Bayt in the hadith are merely the object of love and the observance of their due reverence, what meaning do “لا تقدموهما,” and especially “لا تعلموهم فإنهم أعلم منكم,” have? The more difficult methodological question is why, in a work written to refute the Imami argument, precisely those expressions lying at the heart of the dispute have been removed from the reader’s view.
Silence regarding such passages is not a resolution of the question of signification; it is the removal of part of the question itself.
6–2. al-Tabarani’s Second Transmission: Prohibition of Preceding and Falling Short, the Household’s Superior Knowledge, and the Explicit Connection to ʿAlī’s Wilāya
The second intermediate transmission from Zayd ibn Arqam, which ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār reports through al-Tabarani, as transmitted by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī in Kanz al-ʿUmmāl, is of particular importance with regard to the point at issue with al-Dahlawī. In this narration, after indicating that his departure is near, the Prophet (peace be upon him) makes the community aware of its responsibility concerning how it should deal with the Two Weighty Things, and then states a set of prohibitions regarding them, which at the end is connected to the wilāya of ʿAlī:
“Indeed, I find that no prophet is granted except half the lifespan of the prophet who preceded him, and I am about to be summoned and to respond … So consider how you will succeed me with regard to the Two Weighty Things. They said: ‘What are the Two Weighty Things, O Messenger of God?’ He said: ‘The Book of God: one end of it is in the hand of God and the other end is in your hands. So hold fast to it and do not go astray; and the other is my progeny. Indeed, the Subtle, the All-Aware has informed me that the two will never separate until they come to me at the Pool. So I asked my Lord for this on their behalf. Therefore, do not precede them, lest you perish; do not fall short of them, lest you perish; and do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you. Whoever I have greater authority over than he has over himself, ʿAlī is his guardian. O God, befriend whoever befriends him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.’”
Translation: “I find that no prophet is granted anything except half the lifespan of the prophet before him, and I am close to being summoned and responding to the summons … So consider how you will act after me with regard to the Two Weighty Things. They said: ‘O Messenger of God, what are the Two Weighty Things?’ He said: ‘The Book of God, one end of which is in the hand of God and the other end in your hands; so hold fast to it and do not go astray; and the other is my progeny. The Subtle, All-Aware God has informed me that the two will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool, and I have asked my Lord for this on their behalf. Therefore, do not precede them, lest you perish; do not fall short with regard to them or lag behind them, lest you perish; and do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you. Whoever I have greater authority over than he has over himself, ʿAlī is his guardian. O God, befriend whoever befriends him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.’”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Narration
The opening of the narration once again demonstrates the importance of context. The expression “and I am about to be summoned and to respond” places the statement on the threshold of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) departure, and immediately afterward the question of how the community will deal with the Two Weighty Things is raised: “So consider how you will succeed me with regard to the Two Weighty Things.” Therefore, what follows this sentence is part of the explanation of the community’s responsibility in the period after the Prophet, rather than a collection of scattered and unrelated virtues.
The semantic core of the narration is concentrated in three successive commands:
«فَلَا تَقَدَّمُوهُمَا فَتَهْلِكُوا» «وَلَا تَقْصُرُوا عَنْهُمَا فَتَهْلِكُوا» «وَلَا تُعَلِّمُوهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَعْلَمُ مِنْكُمْ.» (“Do not go ahead of them, lest you perish; do not fall short of them, lest you perish; and do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”)
In the first two commands, the pronoun “هما” refers back to the two weighty things, namely the Book and the عترة. First, advancing ahead of them is prohibited, and then falling short with respect to them. The expression “لا تقصروا عنهما” encompasses the meanings of being remiss toward them, remaining beneath them, and lagging behind them; therefore, it is better not to reduce it to a single meaning. In any case, the common denominator is clear: the community is not permitted to regulate its relationship with the Two Weighty Things on the basis of advancing ahead of them or falling short with respect to them.
The importance of these two prohibitions is heightened by the repetition of the result, “فتهلكوا.” The text does not regard advancing ahead and falling short as merely undesirable conduct; it mentions “perdition” as the consequence of both. This warning shows that the matter does not remain at the level of a ceremonial or emotional recommendation.
In the third command, the structure of the pronoun changes:
«وَلَا تُعَلِّمُوهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَعْلَمُ مِنْكُمْ.» (“And do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you.”)
“Them” is a plural pronoun for rational beings, and here it refers to the Prophet’s progeny (ʿitrah). Thus, after forbidding precedence over or falling short of the Two Weighty Things, the narration specifically establishes an epistemic relationship concerning the ʿitrah: the community is not in the position of teaching them, because they are more knowledgeable than those being addressed.
This explicit statement is one of the most important points that makes a purely emotional reading of the hadith difficult to sustain. Love may be deemed obligatory toward someone without that person being the most knowledgeable; but the sentence “Do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you” speaks of scholarly rank. Therefore, anyone who wishes to restrict the role of the ʿitrah in the hadith solely to veneration and affection must explain what place the explicit assertion of their superior knowledge has within such an interpretation.
Yet the narration does not stop here. Immediately after this series of prohibitions, it says:
“Whoever I have greater authority over than he has over himself, then Ali is his wali.”
The structure of this sentence is, in terms of its implication, even more significant than reports that contain only “Whoever takes me as his mawla.” For it first formulates the Prophet’s relation to the believers with the expression “one who has greater authority over him than he has over himself,” and then transfers that same context to Ali: “then Ali is his wali.” From the perspective of textual analysis, this connection cannot be set aside before it is examined. The narration places the statement about the Two Weighty Things, the prohibition against precedence and falling short, the superior knowledge of the ʿitrah, and then Ali’s wilāyah within a single chain.
At this point, the objection to Dehlavi reaches a critical juncture. He concludes that adherence to the ʿitrah does not necessarily indicate “supreme leadership,” whereas in one of the reports from that same Zayd ibn Arqam to whom he restricted the hadith, the phrase “Whoever I have greater authority over than he has over himself, then Ali is his wali” appears after the prohibition against precedence over the Two Weighty Things and the explicit statement of the ʿitrah’s superior knowledge. If Dehlavi did not accept this implication, the scholarly course was clear: present the supporting report, analyze the contextual indication, and then refute the argument. But setting aside the evidence and then declaring the hadith unrelated to leadership changes the terms of the question before judgment is rendered.
This very point clarifies the difference between “disagreement in interpretation” and “deficiency in representation.” Disagreement over the meaning of “walī” (ولي), the scope of “greater knowledge” (أعلمية), or the domain of “do not precede them” (لا تقدموهما) may be the subject of scholarly discussion; but such disagreement has meaning only when all these words have first been placed before the reader. Once they are omitted, the reader is no longer judging the ḥadīth as it exists in the source; rather, the reader is judging a reduced version of it.
Summary of the Fifth Transmission
This report, on its own and without drawing on other chains of transmission, contains four important elements together: the non-separation of the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt; the prohibition against preceding the Two Weighty Things; the prohibition against falling short with respect to them; an explicit affirmation of the Ahl al-Bayt’s superior knowledge; and, finally, the direct connection of this entire set of points to the walāya of ʿAlī (ع).
Therefore, the importance of this transmission lies not merely in its adding several phrases to the short version of the ḥadīth. These words alter the nature of the community’s relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt: in the text, the Ahl al-Bayt are no longer merely a family to be accorded respect; rather, it speaks of not preceding them, not falling short with respect to them, and not teaching them because of their superior knowledge.
For this reason, omitting this report when claiming that the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things is unrelated to leadership is not a minor omission; it is the removal of evidence that stands precisely against that conclusion. The question posed to al-Dihlawī here is very specific: if the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things truly has no connection with religious precedence and walāya, why does the Prophet, in the trusted transmission from that same Zayd ibn Arqam, immediately say after “لا تقدموهما,” “لا تقصروا عنهما,” and “فإنهم أعلم منكم”: “من كنت أولى به من نفسه فعلي وليه”?
This question must be answered; removing it from the text is not an answer to it.
6–3. Abu Nuʿaym’s Transmission: A Concise Form of the Narration Preserving the Community’s Responsibility and Non-Separation
The third medium-length transmission from Zayd ibn Arqam is a narration transmitted by Abu Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī, which ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār includes among the medium-length wordings. The importance of this narration lies not in adding new expressions, but in its brevity while preserving the two essential pillars of the hadith. For this reason, it can serve as an important criterion for evaluating the claim that the omissions in al-Dihlawī’s report were merely the result of abbreviation.
“We set out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, as pilgrims, until, when we were at al-Juḥfah, at Ghadīr Khumm, he prayed the noon prayer and then stood to deliver a sermon ... He said: ‘I am leaving among you the two weighty things, so consider how you will succeed me with regard to them. We said: O Messenger of Allah, what are the two weighty things? He said: The greater weighty thing is the Book of Allah, a rope whose one end is in the hand of Allah and whose other end is in your hands. So hold fast to it; you will not perish and you will not go astray. And the other is my progeny; indeed, the two will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool.’”
Translation: “We went out with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) for the pilgrimage, until we reached al-Juḥfah, at Ghadīr Khumm. After the noon prayer, he stood to deliver a sermon ... and said: ‘I am leaving among you two weighty things; so consider how you will deal with them after me. We said: O Messenger of Allah, what are the two weighty things? He said: The greater weighty thing is the Book of Allah: a rope, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands. So hold fast to it, so that you will neither perish nor go astray. And the other is my progeny; these two will never separate from one another until they come to me beside the Pool.’”
Textual and Semantic Analysis of the Narration
The first point is the expression “I am leaving among you the two weighty things.” The word “leaving” places the hadith within the framework of what the Prophet leaves behind among the community after him. Immediately thereafter comes the command, “So consider how you will succeed me with regard to them.” This verbal continuity is significant: the Prophet leaves the two weighty things behind and makes the community responsible for how it will act toward both of them after him.
The dual pronoun in “فيهما” is decisive here as well. The subject of the address is not only the Qur’an. The Book and the Progeny are both placed within a single structure, and the manner in which the community deals with both is the subject of the Prophet’s attention. Therefore, without presenting independent evidence, one cannot regard one as an element of guidance and the other merely as an object of affection, for the structure of the narration itself does not articulate such a distinction.
Second, after introducing the Book as “الثقل الأكبر,” the text brings the Progeny into the same duality with the expression “والآخر عترتي.” The difference between “greater” and “the other” does not mean that the Progeny lies outside the structure of the Two Weighty Things; on the contrary, it shows that both fall under a common title, even though their ranks are not presented as identical.
Third, the most important passage of the narration is:
“فإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض” (“For they will never separate until they return to me at the Basin”).
It is. This sentence does not limit the relationship between the Book and the Progeny to a historical moment or a single generation; their non-separation extends until their arrival at the Basin. The minimum certain meaning of this expression is that the narration does not present the Progeny as a transient element alongside the Qur’an. Any theory that reduces the role of the Progeny merely to honoring the Prophet’s household must explain why their not being separated from the Book of God until the end of the community’s journey has been emphasized as part of the hadith’s text.
The importance of this narration for criticizing Dehlavi lies precisely in its brevity. In the two earlier medium-length transmissions, a defender of Dehlavi might say that expressions such as “لا تقدموهما” (“Do not put yourselves ahead of them”), “لا تقصروا عنهما” (“Do not fall short of them”), or “فإنهم أعلم منكم” (“For they are more knowledgeable than you”) are additions found in more विस्तensive versions, and that Dehlavi omitted them in keeping with his abridgment. This transmission, however, makes that defense difficult, because the narration itself is short and nevertheless preserves two essential elements: “كيف تخلفوني فيهما” (“How will you succeed me with regard to them?”) and “لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض” (“They will never separate until they return to me at the Basin”).
In other words, the issue here is no longer a choice between a lengthy sermon and a brief report. A relatively concise version of that same narration of Zayd ibn Arqam is available which, despite its brevity, still preserves the community’s responsibility toward both weighty things and the continued non-separation of the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt. Therefore, the omission of these elements from Dehlawi’s report cannot be attributed merely to the necessity of brevity.
Summary of the Sixth Report
The value of this narration lies less in adding a new proof than in its role as a test. It shows that even after setting aside stronger expressions such as “لا تقدموهما,” “لا تعلموهم,” and “أعلم منكم,” a moderate and concise form of the hadith still preserves two important propositions: the community is responsible toward both weighty things, and the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt will not part from one another until the Pool.
For this reason, invoking “brevity” to defend Dehlawi’s version is incompatible with the very range of Zayd’s reports. Brevity may reduce the number of sentences, but it does not explain why precisely those qualifications were omitted that even the concise reports have preserved.
This point advances the critical case one step further: the problem is no longer merely that Dehlawi set aside the fuller reports; even when the hadith tradition places a short version ready for citation at his disposal, the form he presents is still shorter and semantically more impoverished. Here, “brevity” is no longer a sufficient explanation; the very manner in which the wording was selected and omitted requires explanation.
7. The Concise Wording of the Narration of Zayd ibn Arqam
7–1. The Tirmidhi Narration: The Final Test of the “Abbreviation” Hypothesis
Among the brief wordings attributed to Zayd ibn Arqam, the Tirmidhi narration is of particular importance: on the one hand, it is very close to the form transmitted by Dehlawi, while on the other, despite its brevity, it still preserves several essential indications that are absent from Dehlawi’s report. For this reason, this narration may be regarded as one of the most serious tests of the possible defense that Dehlawi merely selected a shorter form of the hadith because brevity required it.
“Indeed, I am leaving among you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other: the Book of God, a rope extended from heaven to earth, and my progeny, the People of my Household. They will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool. So look how you will treat them after me.”
After narrating it, al-Tirmidhi says:
“This is a hasan gharib hadith.”
Translation: “I am leaving among you something which, if you hold fast to it, you will not go astray after me; one of the two is greater than the other: the Book of God, a rope stretched from heaven to earth, and my progeny, the People of my Household. The two will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool; so see how you will treat them after me.” Al-Tirmidhi says: “This hadith is hasan gharib.”
Semantic and textual analysis of the narration
The first significance of this report lies in the striking similarity between its opening and al-Dihlawi’s wording. Al-Dihlawi writes:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things: as long as you hold fast to them, you will never go astray after me. One of them is greater than the other: the Book of God and my progeny.”
The Tirmidhi narration likewise contains the principal elements of “leaving [them] among the community,” “holding fast,” “not going astray,” and “one of them is greater than the other.” This proximity takes the comparison beyond the level of a general assessment and turns it into a very specific question: If al-Dihlawi’s wording is based on such a form, why has the continuation of this same report disappeared from his account?
The first omission is the expression:
“The Book of God is a rope extended from heaven to earth.”
This passage, rather than being by itself a locus of dispute between the Imamiyyah and Dehlawi, delineates the status and continuity of connection to the Book of God; therefore, its omission cannot be assessed, in terms of theological orientation, to the same extent as the three passages that follow. Nevertheless, this very phrase shows that Dehlawi did not reproduce the text of al-Tirmidhi verbatim.
The second, and more important, is the expression:
«وَعِتْرَتِي أَهْلُ بَيْتِي»
Here, «أهل بيتي» explains the ‘itrah and makes its referent clearer within the text itself. Dehlawi retained «عترتي», but did not include the explanation attached to it, namely «أهل بيتي». Thus, what was omitted is not merely two superfluous words; it is part of the intra-textual elucidation of one of the two weighty things.
Third, the very important sentence:
«وَلَنْ يَفْتَرِقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ»
It is. This passage does not limit the relationship between the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt to the time when the hadith was uttered; rather, it speaks of the continued inseparability of the two until the Basin. Therefore, even in its abbreviated form, the Tirmidhi narration does not present the Ahl al-Bayt as a temporary element or merely as an object of familial respect; instead, it extends their companionship with the Book until the end.
Fourth, the hadith concludes with this command:
«فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ تَخْلُفُونِي فِيهِمَا.»
Once again, the dual pronoun “فيهما” makes both weighty things the subject of the community’s responsibility after the Prophet. This phrase is of fundamental importance in discussing the indication, because it shows that the Prophet speaks to the community about how it should deal with the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt together. In this structure, the Ahl al-Bayt are not merely a respected name alongside the Qur’an; the community’s conduct toward them, just like its conduct toward the other weighty thing, is made the subject of attention and questioning.
Consequently, the difference between the Tirmidhi narration and the Dahlawi form is not merely a difference in “length and brevity.” The three passages, “أهل بيتي,” “لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض,” and “فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما,” are precisely among the qualifications that directly affect the determination of the status of the Ahl al-Bayt and the nature of the community’s relationship with them. The Dahlawi form retains the common elements at the beginning of the narration, but omits these evidentiary indications.
This is where the assumption of a “neutral abridgment” encounters a serious problem. If the aim had merely been to shorten the hadith, al-Dahlawi could have cited this same abbreviated form of the Tirmidhi narration—a narration that is neither a lengthy sermon nor one containing many historical details. Nevertheless, the form presented by him is shorter than even one of the attested concise wordings and poorer in terms of evidentiary indications.
Another possibility remains: perhaps Dehlavi took this wording from another source. But in that case, the clear scholarly obligation is to identify that source. The critique in Abaqāt al-Anwār focuses precisely on this point: after comparing an extensive body of wordings reported by Sunni traditionists and hadith memorizers, Mīrzā Sayyid Ḥāmid Ḥusayn states that Dehlavi’s wording matches none of them. Nafahāt likewise summarizes the result of this examination by saying that this wording corresponds to none of the wordings of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn found in the reports of those hadith memorizers and hadith authorities.
This point takes the charge beyond “he selected a shorter version of the narration.” If no source is provided for this exact verbal combination, we are faced with a text that contains part of the structure of the well-known Tirmidhi narration, yet lacks precisely those qualifications that strengthen the hadith’s argumentative force concerning the Ahl al-Bayt. Under such circumstances, the issue is no longer a choice between two authoritative versions; it is the reliability of the represented form itself as a transmitted hadith.
Summary of the Seventh Narration
The Tirmidhi narration is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in criticizing Dehlavi’s manner of reporting, because it severely restricts a defense based on “abridgment.” This hadith is itself concise, yet it retains “أهل بيتي,” the non-separation of the Qur’an and the progeny until the Pond, and the community’s responsibility toward both Weighty Things.
Therefore, the issue is not that Dehlavi omitted lengthy sermons in order to avoid prolixity; the question is why, even when confronted with one of the short and firmly attested versions, his report was still stripped of the most important indicators of meaning.
Here the pattern of omission reaches a point that cannot be explained by the word “abridgment.” Abridgment reduces the length of a text; but when the reduction repeatedly targets precisely those parts that could challenge the author’s theological conclusion, the issue moves beyond the technique of summarization and reaches the integrity of representing the opposing argument.
And it is precisely for this reason that al-Tirmidhi’s narration is dangerous for al-Dehlawi’s critique: to reveal what has remained hidden from the reader, there is no longer even any need to consult lengthy narrations; it is enough to read, without omission, that same concise narration of Zayd ibn Arqam in one of the most famous Sunni hadith sources.
7 ـ 2. The “Two Successors” Narration: A Wording That Directly Introduces the Question of Succession into the Text
The second abbreviated version of Zayd ibn Arqam’s narration is, in one respect, even more sensitive than al-Tirmidhi’s transmission, because at the beginning of the hadith, instead of the designation “the Two Weighty Things,” the expression “two successors” appears. Al-Tabarani transmitted this narration, and al-Muttaqi al-Hindi also included it in Kanz al-ʿUmmal:
“Indeed, I am leaving among you two successors: the Book of Allah, a rope stretched between heaven and earth, and my progeny, the people of my household; and they will never separate until they come to me at the Pond.”
Translation: “I leave among you two successors: the Book of God, a rope stretched between heaven and earth, and my progeny, my household; and these two will never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pond.”
Semantic and Textual Analysis of the Narration
The central point of this narration is the term “خليفتين” (“two caliphs”). Here, the Prophet (peace be upon him) does not say that he is leaving among you merely two valuable things or two legacies; rather, he introduces them as “two caliphs.” Linguistically, a “caliph” is something or someone who remains after another and occupies the position following him. Therefore, this term directly brings, at the very least, the concept of succession and representation after the Prophet into the field of the hadith’s signification.
“Caliphate” in this hadith refers, at the very least, to something that the Prophet leaves among the community after himself and to which he assigns a continuous and guiding role.
This meaning is reinforced by the continuation of the narration. The two caliphs are:
« كتاب الله ... وعترتي أهل بيتي » (“The Book of God ... and my progeny, the people of my household”)
And immediately concerning them it is said:
« وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض .» (“Indeed, they will never separate until they return to me at the Pool.”)
Therefore, the ʿitra has not only been called a “caliph”; its caliphate has also been linked, alongside the Book, with their continued non-separation until the Pool. The structure of the narration speaks of something that remains after the Prophet, continues with the community, and does not become separated from the Book of God until the end. Reducing such an image to “mere love for the Prophet’s relatives,” at least without additional explanation, is difficult to reconcile with the totality of the hadith’s wording.
The importance of this transmission becomes clearer when confronting Dehlawi’s statement. In arguing against the hadith’s indication of the imamate, Dehlawi maintains that what the community is commanded to hold fast to need not be the possessor of “supreme leadership.” Yet within the very family of narrations on which he passes judgment, there is a version in which the Prophet calls the Book and the ʿitra “two caliphs.” In such a situation, one cannot first remove the wording “two caliphs” from the report and then confidently declare that the hadith has essentially no connection with the issue of succession and leadership.
The scholarly path was entirely clear: Dehlawi could have cited the narration of the “two caliphs” and then argued that “caliphate” here means authority and continuity, not political leadership; he could have challenged its chain of transmission; or he could have restricted the scope of its indication through other corroborating considerations. All of these would have constituted scholarly criticism. What does not constitute scholarly criticism is the disappearance of the evidence itself, followed by the issuance of a general judgment that this very evidence directly calls into question.
From this perspective, the narration of the “two caliphs” is doubly important for evaluating Dehlawi’s method. The issue is not merely that he failed to mention one of the hadith’s wordings; the omitted wording belongs precisely to the same conceptual family that Dehlawi seeks to deny has any connection whatsoever with the hadith. When the subject of dispute is “succession,” the existence of the narration of the “two caliphs” is not a subsidiary detail; it is one of the first pieces of evidence that a critic is obligated to confront directly.
Summary of the Eighth Narration
Within the family of narrations attributed to Zayd ibn Arqam, there is a text that explicitly presents the Book and the ʿitra as “two caliphs” after the Prophet and declares their continued companionship until the Pool.
Therefore, anyone who wishes to conclude that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn has no connection with the issue of succession and leadership is, above all, obliged to confront this very narration. He may reject it, criticize its chain of transmission, or limit its implication; but he cannot remove it from the case file and then infer that no connection exists.
Scientific criticism means placing the strongest opposing evidence on the table and dealing with it successfully—not removing the evidence from the table and then announcing that there was nothing requiring a response.
7–3. al-Daylami’s Narration: Guidance, Misguidance, and Reminding of the Right of Ahl al-Bayt
“Indeed, I am leaving among you the two weighty things: the Book of God, which is among you and from which there extends a cord; whoever follows it is upon guidance, and whoever abandons it is upon misguidance; and my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you, by God, concerning my Ahl al-Bayt. They shall never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool.”
Source: al-Daylami, Firdaws al-Akhbar, as cited in Abaqat, vol. 20, p. 23 (PDF: 34), and Nafahat, printed edition pp. 243–244 (PDF: 287–288).
Translation: “I leave among you two weighty things: the Book of God, which is among you and from which a cord extends; whoever follows it is upon guidance, and whoever abandons it is upon misguidance; and my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you, by God, concerning my Ahl al-Bayt, and the two shall never separate from one another until they come to me at the Pool.”
A Detailed Analysis of This Transmission
This concise version speaks of two paths—guidance and misguidance—concerning the Book, then places the Ahl al-Bayt alongside it and preserves their non-separation. The phrase “أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي” itself emphasizes the right and sanctity of the Ahl al-Bayt, but in this text it cannot be read separately from “لن يفترقا.” Thus, even where love and observance of their right are highlighted, the structure of the hadith continues to establish a lasting relationship between the Ahl al-Bayt and the Qur’an.
Summary of the Ninth Transmission
This narration shows that the dichotomy of “either love or authority” is fundamentally simplistic. The hadith can both emphasize observing the right of the Ahl al-Bayt and place them within the structure of the Two Weighty Things and their non-separation from the Qur’an. Dehlawi’s error lies in reducing the text and thereby depriving the reader of the possibility of seeing these layers simultaneously.
8. Why Is Dehlawi’s Version “Distortion in Representation,” Rather Than an Ordinary Abridgment?
The issue can now be taken beyond the level of the dispersion of the transmissions, allowing a judgment on the nature of Dehlawi’s work in representing the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things. The version transmitted in the Tuhfa-yi Ithna Ashariyya resembles, on the one hand, some well-known wordings of the hadith; but, on the other hand, according to Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s exhaustive investigation, it is identical to none of the established versions transmitted in the broad array of Sunni sources and chains of transmission. Nafahat al-Azhar reports this situation under the heading “تفرّد الدهلوي بنقل لفظ الحديث كما نقله” and, after enumerating a large number of hadith scholars and hafizs, concludes:
“This wording does not match any of the wordings of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things found in the reports of these hadith masters and imams.”
That is, the wording cited by Dehlawi does not match any of the wordings of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in the reports of these hadith masters and imams.
This point clarifies the boundary between legitimate abridgment and distortion in representation. Scholarly abridgment is acceptable when it either cites one of the extant forms briefly while preserving its semantic core, or, if it is a paraphrase, explicitly identifies it as such and does not omit decisive elements of meaning in a way that changes the picture of the source. In Dehlawi’s account, however, the issue is not merely the omission of a few words or an unimportant detail; the omissions occur chiefly at the most sensitive points of the hadith’s meaning.
What has been removed from Dehlawi’s presentation is a meaningful set of elements: “Ahl Bayti” (my Ahl al-Bayt), which explains the ‘itra within the text itself; “they will never part until they come to me at the Pond,” which expresses the continued companionship of the Qur’an and the ‘itra; “so consider how you succeed me with regard to them both,” which makes both weighty things the subject of the community’s responsibility; “if you follow them,” which links following the two to freedom from misguidance; “do not precede them” and “do not fall short of them,” which regulate the community’s relation to the Two Weighty Things in terms of precedence and falling short; “and do not teach them, for they know better than you,” which explicitly states the scholarly rank of the ‘itra; the expression “two successors,” which directly introduces the concept of succession into the text; and, in several transmission routes, the connection of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to “Whoever has me as his master…,” which turns the hadith’s relation to the wilayah of ‘Ali (peace be upon him) into a serious interpretive question.
These are not peripheral components of the hadith. Almost every one of them relates precisely to one of the points that Dehlawi needs to weaken when rejecting the Imami interpretation: the identity of the ‘itra, the continuity of its authority, the obligation to follow it, the prohibition on preceding it, its superior knowledge, succession, and its relation to the wilayah of ‘Ali (peace be upon him). The issue, therefore, is not merely “a reduction in the volume of the report”; it is a reduction in its argumentative capacity.
Here, methodological judgment must be precise. This pattern of omission alone cannot prove Dehlawi’s inner intention, and this article makes no such claim. But proof of intent is not necessary for scholarly criticism. What can be observed and assessed is the actual effect of the representation: the text presented to the reader is systematically stripped of the very indicators that could challenge Dehlawi’s theological conclusion.
From the perspective of critical thinking, this conduct is precisely contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of fair criticism: a rival argument must first be reconstructed in its strongest and best-documented form, and then criticized. A scholarly critic is obliged to place the most challenging evidence on the table first, rather than weakening the rival argument before engaging with it by restricting the data. Here, instead of confronting the strongest form of the argument, we see the data being weakened step by step before judgment: first, the range of transmitters is restricted to Zayd ibn Arqam; then, within this very chain, the extended and intermediate forms are set aside; even the concise, reliably recorded narrations are not reported verbatim; and finally, a phrase remains for which the exhaustive survey in *ʿAbaqāt* finds no matching source.
For this reason, the term “distortion in representation” is more precise in this study than “abridgment.” By distortion here, it is by no means meant that Dehlavi necessarily fabricated a hadith from scratch. The claim is narrower and, at the same time, more demonstrable: a narration has been presented to the reader as the hadith of Zayd ibn Arqam, even though its wording does not correspond to the reliably recorded forms covered by the survey, while relevant and consequential indications present in those narrations have also been removed from the final picture.
The difference between the two is very important. “Fabricating a hadith” is a claim about the origin of the original text; “distortion in representation,” however, is a judgment about how a source is presented. The subject of criticism in this article is the latter, and its evidence is also in plain view: wording that does not correspond, the systematic omission of indications, and a marked change in the picture the reader receives of the hadith.
Conclusion
If Dehlavi had quoted verbatim one of the short and well-documented forms of the hadith and then rejected its implication, the matter would have been a clear scholarly disagreement. If he had reported all the indications and disputed their value, the discussion would still have remained within the bounds of scholarly criticism. But when the text at issue is stripped of its most important evidence before criticism, and the final form corresponds to none of the surveyed wordings, the matter can no longer be dismissed with the neutral term “abridgment.”
In such a situation, the issue goes beyond the weakness of an argument and concerns fidelity in transmitting the rival’s evidence. Dehlavi had the right to reject the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Hadith al-Thaqalayn), consider its implication limited, and reject the Imami argument; but no scholarly criticism has the right first to weaken the form of the argument and then attribute the weakness of that weakened form to the original argument.
This is no longer a critique of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn; it is a critique of a version of the hadith constructed after inconvenient evidence has been removed.
9. From Concealing Data to Betrayal of Scholarly Trust: The Issue Is No Longer “Source Selection”
It may be said in defense of Dehlawi that no author is obliged to cite in a book everything that the sources contain on a subject, and that every researcher has the right to select from among a wealth of data. This is correct in principle, but it does not resolve the issue at hand; for the legitimacy of scholarly selection is conditional on its not distorting the picture of the subject, not concealing from the reader data that run counter to the researcher’s conclusion, and on the material presented as a “quotation” having an identifiable source.
Here we are dealing with a very limited subject: a specific hadith, in the context of critiquing the argument of a school of thought, and even—after Dehlawi’s restriction—with one specific isnad from Zayd ibn Arqam. Thus, this is not a matter of an author’s inability to survey an infinite multitude of sources. On the contrary, ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār shows that the principal materials in the case could be collected and compared—to the extent that the hadith was reported from thirty-four male and female Companions, and Sunni scholars themselves explicitly acknowledged its notably numerous transmission routes.
Dehlawi’s conduct can be examined in three stages. In the first stage, the scope of the narration is narrowed: a hadith with a wide network of transmission routes is reduced in his presentation to Zayd ibn Arqam. In the second stage, even within that restricted scope, the data are narrowed further: among Zayd’s full, intermediate, and concise wordings, many passages that directly affect the hadith’s import are not presented to the reader. In the third stage, the final form of the quotation faces another problem: Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s exhaustive survey shows that the wording Dehlawi quoted does not fully match any of the forms recorded by that broad body of hadith scholars and hadith authorities. Nafahāt explicitly reports this conclusion with the phrase “عدم مطابقة هذا اللفظ المذكور لواحد من ألفاظ حديث الثقلين” (“this stated wording does not correspond to any of the wordings of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn”).
These three stages cannot be covered over with the neutral label “methodological disagreement.” Methodological disagreement occurs when two researchers analyze the same data in different ways, not when one of them, before analysis, has removed part of the relevant data from the question under examination. Differences in interpretation are legitimate; differences in the degree of fidelity to the data are a matter of a different kind.
It is in this sense that the expression “concealment of the truth” is used in this article. It does not mean claiming knowledge of Dahlawi’s inner intention. At the level of research, concealment occurs when available information that bears on a judgment is excluded from the presentation of the subject, and that omission gives the reader an incomplete picture of the reality of the source. In the present case, what has been omitted is precisely the kind of material that can change the reader’s assessment of the hadith’s import: following, non-separation, the prohibition on preceding, superior knowledge, the expression “caliphate,” and connection to the wilayah of Ali (peace be upon him). Thus, the external effect of these omissions is not merely a shortening of the text; it is the weakening of the evidence before it is critiqued.
But when such conduct occurs in a book whose aim is to refute a school of thought, the matter is more serious. In such a position, the critic is responsible not only to the source; the critic also owes fidelity to the reader and to the scholarly opponent. The critic is obliged to present what they intend to refute in a way that allows the other party to say: “This is my very argument; now critique it.” If an opponent’s argument is first stripped of its most important evidence and then that weakened form is made the target of refutation, the critique has departed from its true subject.
For this reason, the more precise expression than “academic betrayal” in this article is “betrayal of scholarly trust.” This expression does not refer to a technical designation in research-misconduct regulations; it is a methodological description: a breach of the trust that researchers bear in faithfully representing sources and opposing arguments. Such betrayal occurs when the selection and omission of information are carried out in a way that deprives the reader of the ability to see the actual form of the opponent’s argument and judge it independently.
In the case of Dahlawi, the significance of this critique is doubled by the fact that the author of Abaqat al-Anwar does not turn to particular Imami sources to establish these shortcomings. The reports at issue in the argument are cited from works such as al-Nasa’i, al-Hakim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Tabarani, Abu Nu‘aym, and Ibn al-Maghazili; and, to establish the breadth of the chains and wordings, works by al-Suyuti, al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, al-Sakhawi, al-Samhudi, Ibn Hajar, and other Sunni scholars are also cited. For example, in this same collection, Zayd’s extended and intermediate reports are transmitted from various Sunni sources with wordings such as “إن اتبعتموهما” (“if you follow them both”), “لا تقدموهما” (“do not precede them”), and “فإنهم أعلم منكم” (“for they are more knowledgeable than you”).
Therefore, this critique cannot be dismissed with the simple reply, “This is a Shi‘i interpretation.” The issue arises before entering into Imami premises: did Dahlawi present to the reader, completely and fairly, the hadith heritage available in the very sources he himself cited, or not? The answer of Abaqat al-Anwar, on the basis of comparing the chains and wordings, is no.
From this perspective, the difference between Dahlawi and Mir Sayyid Hamid Husain lies not only in the “theological conclusion”; it lies in how they engage with the raw material of research. Dahlawi diminishes and abridges the opponent’s argument, then critiques it; Mir Sayyid Hamid Husain, by contrast, expands the chains, preserves the variations in wording, places the other party’s sources on the table, and allows the reader to see the entire matter before reaching a judgment.
This is precisely where methodological criticism reaches the ethics of research: a critic has the right to reject a rival’s conclusion, but not to make the evidentiary reality of that rival’s source appear smaller to the reader than it is before rejecting it. When this happens repeatedly and precisely at points critical to the meaning of the text, the terms “brevity” or “selection” no longer suffice; what is at issue is the concealment of data and a breach of the trust owed in the scholarly representation of evidence.
10. The Method of Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn: Exhaustive Source Tracing, Preservation of the Text, and Internal Criticism
In contrast to Dehlavi’s approach, Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn’s method in *Abaqāt al-Anwār* rests on a simple yet fundamental principle: before judging the meaning of a hadith, its transmitted reality must be brought to light as fully as possible. Accordingly, he does not begin the discussion with a theological conclusion. He first asks who transmitted the hadith, who recorded and sourced it, and with what wordings and contexts it was preserved in the sources. This prioritization of “knowing the data” over “judging the data” is one of the most important strengths of his method.
Even after restricting the discussion to Zayd ibn Arqam, he does not settle for a single preferred transmission. He first presents the extended versions, then turns to the intermediate versions, and finally reports the brief wordings separately. *Abaqāt* explicitly distinguishes these three stages: it first objects that Dehlavi cited none of Zayd’s extended contexts, then raises the same question about the intermediate contexts, and in the next stage shows that not even one of the brief, reliably preserved versions appears verbatim in Dehlavi’s account.
This distinction is not merely a matter of the book’s formal organization; it is an important methodological decision in textual criticism. Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn does not blend the wordings of different transmission routes into one another to construct a text that is as forceful as possible. Rather, he preserves each transmission with its own source and structure. This makes it possible to determine which route contains “إن اتبعتموهما,” which transmission records “لا تقدموهما” and “فإنهم أعلم منكم,” which version has “خليفتين,” and which sources report the linking of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn to the proclamation of ʿAlī’s authority. This traceability marks the boundary between verifiable hadith scholarship and the selective conflation of texts.
The third feature is the internal basis of the criticism. To expose the shortcomings of Dehlavi’s account, the author of *Abaqāt* does not need first to impose on him the authority of sources specific to Imami Shiʿism. In these very pages, he cites al-Nasāʾī, al-Ḥākim, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Tirmidhī, Abū Nuʿaym, Ibn al-Maghāzilī, al-Suyūṭī, al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, and a great many Sunni hadith scholars and hadith masters. Even when, at the end, he seeks to demonstrate that Dehlavi’s wording does not correspond to the transmitted versions, he lays before the reader a very extensive list of transmitters and compilers from this very hadith tradition, then concludes that Dehlavi’s version matches none of those contexts.
This method’s strength lies precisely here: Dehlavi is assessed using evidence drawn from within the Sunni hadith tradition. As a result, a critic cannot dismiss the issue itself simply by replying that the argument rests on premises specific to the Shiʿa. Before reaching any Imami conclusion, there is an independent question: does the presentation of the hadith correspond to the hadith heritage available within that same tradition or not?
The fourth aspect of the ʿAbaqāt method is its verifiability. Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn usually does not merely say, “A report exists”; he also preserves the name of the hadith scholar, the book, the chain of transmission, and, in some cases, the source’s hadith assessment. For example, in quoting al-Ḥākim, he records the phrase «هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين», and in quoting al-Tirmidhī he likewise gives the assessment «هذا حديث حسن غريب». Thus, whether agreeing or disagreeing, the reader need not place unquestioning trust in the judgment of the author of ʿAbaqāt; the line of argument is laid out before them, and they can return to the original sources and reassess the quotation, chain, and import for themselves.
This very feature reveals the profound difference between the two modes of engagement. Dehlavi places the conclusion before the reader but does not show part of the dossier needed to assess that conclusion; Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn opens the dossier and presents even materials that may be contested, together with their sources. The strength of the second method lies precisely not in compelling the reader to accept all its conclusions; its strength lies in giving the reader enough material to disagree as well.
Therefore, calling the method of ʿAbaqāt scholarly does not mean that all its theological inferences are immune to criticism. A researcher may dispute the independence of some chains, the reliability of certain isnāds, the scope of “following,” the meaning of “my two successors,” the extent of preeminence in knowledge, or the degree to which the continuity of the Two Weighty Things and Ghadīr signifies what is claimed. But such disagreement occurs after the evidence has been seen, not after it has been removed. This is no small distinction; critical thinking rests precisely on first placing all evidence that may affect a judgment at the decision-maker’s disposal, and only then disagreeing over its weight.
From this perspective, the contrast between the methods of Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn and Dehlavi cannot be regarded merely as a contrast between two “styles of writing.” One proceeds by expanding the field of evidence, distinguishing the wordings, citing sources, and enabling verification; the other, as shown in the preceding sections, proceeds by restricting the transmitters, omitting parts of the range of wordings, and ultimately citing a form for which no matching source is found in the ʿAbaqāt survey.
The chief merit of ʿAbaqāt is not that it announces the “correct” conclusion in place of Dehlavi; its chief merit is that, before asking the reader to accept its conclusion, it strives to conceal nothing of the dossier from them. This very principle marks the distance between research that seeks to bring its audience to a judgment and a text that, before judgment is made, restricts the scope of what the audience is entitled to see.
11. Results of direct signification: what becomes clear before entering into all the arguments of ʿAbaqāt
The main scope of this study is to critique the way the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is represented in Tuḥfa-yi Ithnā ʿAshariyya, not to reconstruct all sixty-six arguments that Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn subsequently adduces to establish the hadith’s signification. Nevertheless, an independent examination of these very reports from Zayd ibn Arqam shows that even before entering that extensive body of argument, the hadith cannot be reduced to a mere recommendation concerning love for the Ahl al-Bayt. The wording of the report itself presents the interpreter with a set of relations involving guidance, knowledge, and authority that must be explained.
In some transmission routes, the matter is stated even more explicitly than “holding fast,” and the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “You will not go astray if you follow them both”; that is, not going astray is linked to “following” the Book and the Ahl al-Bayt through a dual pronoun. Nafaḥāt, too, later makes this very term “following” one of the proofs for the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt. Therefore, any reading that reduces the community’s relation to the ʿitra solely to love and veneration must first explain what “following” means in this structure.
The phrase “They will never part until they come to me at the Pool” is also repeated in numerous reports. At a minimum, this sentence signifies the continuity of the bond between the Book and the ʿitra until the end of the community’s journey. Nafaḥāt, too, treats this non-separation as an independent basis for its discussion of the hadith’s signification, and cites Sunni scholars who linked it to religious adherence to both. Thus, in the hadith’s text, the ʿitra is not a temporary historical element alongside the Quran whose role ended once the community was advised to honor them.
In some wordings, the community’s relation to the Two Weighty Things is framed more precisely still: “Do not precede them, lest you perish,” and “Do not fall short of them, lest you perish.” Here it is best to avoid imposing a single, unambiguous translation on “Do not fall short of them”; the expression can convey both a prohibition against negligence and against lagging behind the Two Weighty Things. What is beyond doubt, however, is that the report assigns the consequence of “perishing” to preceding the Two Weighty Things and falling short in relation to them. Nafaḥāt, too, cites these very wordings as independent evidence, first in its discussion of superior knowledge and then in its discussion of “precedence over the Ahl al-Bayt.”
Most explicit of all is the sentence “Do not teach them, for they are more learned than you.” Here, the ʿitra’s epistemic standing is not a remote inference drawn from the text: the report itself bars the community from assuming the role of teacher toward them and gives as its reason that “they are more learned.” Nafaḥāt, too, opens a separate chapter entitled “The hadith’s indication of the superior knowledge of the Ahl al-Bayt” and counts this very wording among its clearest proofs. Even if the scope of “superior knowledge” is disputed, the presence of this epistemic relation in the hadith cannot be explained away as “mere love.”
In one of the shorter forms, the title “two successors” (خليفتين) is also used for the Book and the Progeny. Scholarly rigor requires that the entire theory of political Imamate not be immediately derived from this word, since the Book of God is also called a “successor” in this same report. On the other hand, however, the word “two successors” cannot be treated as having no effect. At the very least, this wording brings into the field of interpretation the concept of remaining and acting as a successor after the Prophet. Nafahāt later examines this form independently as well, and reports its transmission from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-Ṭabarānī, and others.
Finally, in several chains of transmission, the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things appears in the same context as the announcement of ʿAlī’s authority (wilāya). This connection is not confined to a single report; Nafahāt opens a separate chapter entitled “Combining the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things and Wilāya” and cites a collection of chains in which “Whoever I am his master...” and the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things occur together in one event and one address. In al-Ḥākim’s transmission from Zayd ibn Arqam himself, “You will not go astray if you follow them both” is also connected to the question “Do you know that I have greater authority over the believers than they have over themselves?” and then to “Whoever I am his master, ʿAlī is his master.” The proximity of these statements may be debated in terms of the degree of its implication, but its status as contextual evidence cannot be dismissed.
At this point, two claims must be distinguished. The first claim is that each of these wordings, by itself, proves the entire Imāmī theory of the Imamate; this proposition requires other premises and discussions and is not the direct subject of the present article. The second claim is much narrower and, at the same time, stronger: in the presence of such wordings, the absolute denial of any connection between the Ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things and religious authority, precedence, superior knowledge, succession, and wilāya cannot be defended without examining this evidence. This second claim is sufficient to refute Dehlawī’s statement.
Dehlawī has said that the ḥadīth “has no bearing” on the Imāmī claim, because the one to whom adherence is due need not be the holder of supreme leadership. Nafahāt begins its response concerning the meaning precisely after completing its criticism of the manner of transmission, under the heading that the purport of the ḥadīth is the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt; it then connects this status with the Imamate and leadership. More importantly, the author does not rely solely on his own analysis for the basic meaning of adherence: he cites al-Ṭībī, al-Taftāzānī, and Ibn Ḥajar, who explain adherence to the Progeny as “being guided by their guidance and conduct,” following them, and learning from them.
Therefore, the real scholarly dispute begins only here: Is “following” in the ḥadīth unrestricted or limited? Precisely what degree of accompaniment with the Qur’an does the non-separation establish? What scope does the prohibition on taking precedence have? Superior knowledge in relation to whom, and in which sciences? What kind of succession does “two successors” (خليفتين) convey in this context? And how much contextual evidence for a political and wilāya-oriented interpretation of the ḥadīth does the connection between the Two Weighty Things and the event of Ghadīr provide?
These are real questions worthy of scholarly debate. But the condition for entering this debate is that all relevant evidence first be on the table. Dehlawī narrowed the issue immediately before this stage. Thus, ʿAbaqāt’s objection to him is not merely that he reached “the wrong conclusion”; the more fundamental objection is that he brought the reader to the stage of judgment without placing at the reader’s disposal all the material that could have changed that judgment.
Consequently, what this collection of reports establishes, within the limits of the present study, is at least that Dehlawi’s claim that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is fundamentally unrelated to the claim of imamate goes far beyond the capacity of the data made available by the hadith sources themselves. Disagreement over the extent of its signification is possible; but denying the existence of problematic indications after removing the texts that constitute those very indications is no longer a scholarly disagreement. It is a reformulation of the issue before the critique even begins.
12. Conclusion
A critical rereading of Abd al-Aziz Dehlawi’s account of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn shows that the issue cannot be explained by the neutral phrase “a methodological disagreement.” Methodological disagreement has meaning when two researchers, after gaining access to a shared body of data, differ in their mode of analysis or in their conclusions. Here, however, the dispute begins before the stage of interpretation: the scope of the data has been restricted, some effective evidence has been removed, and ultimately a form of the hadith has been attributed to Zayd ibn Arqam that, according to the investigation of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, does not fully correspond to any of the wordings examined in the broad collection of hadith sources.
At the first stage, Dehlawi restricts a hadith transmitted from a considerable number of male and female Companions, in his account, to Zayd ibn Arqam. Then, even within this chain, he does not place before the reader the extended, intermediate, and abbreviated forms as they are recorded in the sources. In the extended transmissions, expressions such as “عترتي أهل بيتي,” “لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض,” and the connection of the hadith to the wilayah of Ali (peace be upon him) are found. In the intermediate transmissions appear “لا تقدموهما,” “لا تقصروا عنهما,” and “لا تعلموهم فإنهم أعلم منكم.” Even in the abbreviated transmissions, there is the Tirmidhi version and the explicit expression “خليفتين.”
The significance of these omissions lies not in their number, but in their common direction. What is absent from Dehlawi’s account is, for the most part, precisely those passages that can take the position of the Ahl al-Bayt beyond mere love and veneration and bring into the field of signification the issues of following them, their non-separation from the Qur’an, their not being preceded, their superior knowledge, succession, and connection with the wilayah of Ali (peace be upon him). The objective result of such a representation is that the opposing argument is deprived of part of its argumentative power before it is even criticized.
For this reason, the term “distortion” in this study does not refer to fabricating a hadith or to judging Dehlawi’s inner intention; rather, it means distortion in the representation of the source. When a text is presented as a narration, but its corresponding source is not identified, while at the same time a set of effective indications present in its attested forms is removed, the matter can no longer be described as an ordinary abridgment. In a work written with the aim of refuting and invalidating a school, such conduct constitutes a serious breach of research integrity, because the reader encounters not the strongest form of the opposing argument, but a reduced version of it.
In contrast to this approach, the principal merit of Mir Sayyid Hamid Husayn in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār lies not merely in his theological conclusion, but in the structure of his research. He gathers multiple transmission routes, preserves variations in wording, distinguishes between विस्तensive, intermediate, and concise reports, identifies the source of each version, and bases the main part of his argument on Sunni sources and scholars. Consequently, even a researcher who does not accept his theological conclusion has at his disposal the materials necessary for independent review and criticism. It is this feature that makes the exhaustive investigation of ʿAbaqāt a distinguished example of immanent, verifiable criticism.
Of course, this study does not claim that the mere existence of any one of these wordings, by itself and without other premises, proves the entire Imami theory of the Imamate. Scholarly debate may still concern the scope of “followers,” the implication of “non-separation,” the meaning of “two successors,” the domain of superior knowledge, and the degree of evidentiary correlation between al-Thaqalayn and Ghadir. Yet legitimate debate begins precisely at this point: after all effective data have been examined. What is unacceptable is to eliminate these very data and then infer that the hadith is unrelated to the Imami claim.
From this perspective, the most serious criticism of Dehlawi is not that he reached a non-Shiite conclusion; disagreement over the conclusion is every researcher’s right. The principal criticism is that he rendered the formulation of the problem incomplete before passing judgment. Scholarly research may, after examining all the evidence, reject the implication of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn for the Imamate; but it cannot first remove from consideration the evidence that might challenge this conclusion and then use the absence of that same evidence in support of its own conclusion.
In a single sentence, Dehlawi’s problem is not merely an error in interpreting the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn; it is the weakening of the proof before criticism of it has even begun. And when such weakening occurs in the course of refuting a school, through the systematic omission of effective evidence, the matter is no longer one of scholarly disagreement; it involves concealing the truth and betraying scholarly trust in representing the source.
Textual and Referential Note
The Arabic hadith texts in this article have been rewritten on the basis of the forms transmitted in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, with supplementary consultation of Nafahāt al-Azhār, separating the words and using standard orthography. In cases where ʿAbaqāt marks variant readings, possible corrections, or its own interpretive inferences with symbols such as “ظ” and “م,” the variant form has not been fixed as the definitive wording of the report; instead, the analysis has focused on the clear and reliable components of the text. ʿAbaqāt itself explicitly records these variations and inferences in its transmission of Ibn al-Maghazili’s sermon.
The Persian translations are likewise close to the text while also being analytical. To preserve semantic continuity, key terms such as “thaqal,” “tamassuk,” “ittibāʿ,” “walī,” “caliph,” “precedence,” and “separation” have, as far as possible, been translated with consistent equivalents or alongside the retention of the original Arabic term. Where a word—such as “lā tuqaṣṣirū ʿanhum/ʿanhumā”—admits more than one defensible meaning, imposing a single definitive meaning has been avoided, and the range of semantic possibilities has been explained in the analysis.
This version is stronger for the conclusion of the article than the current text, because at the end, instead of merely repeating the material, it presents the article’s final judgment as a clear chain of proof: restricting the data ← eliminating the contextual evidence ← mismatch of wording ← weakening of the argument ← violation of scholarly integrity.
Principal Sources and References
Mir Sayyid Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Mūsawī, ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār fī Imāmat al-Aʾimmah al-Aṭhār, vol. 20; section used: pp. 3–26 (in the PDF file used: approximately pp. 13–37).
Sayyid ʿAlī Ḥusaynī Mīlānī, Nafaḥāt al-Azhār fī Khulāṣat ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 2; section used in the PDF file: pp. 261–291 (corresponding to approximately printed pp. 226–247).
al-Nasāʾī, al-Khaṣāʾiṣ, p. 93; the source of the lengthy narration of Zayd ibn Arqam, as transmitted in ʿAbaqāt and Nafaḥāt.
Al-Hakim al-Nishaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 3, p. 109; the source of the narration of Salama ibn Kuhayl from Abu al-Tufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam.
Al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami‘ al-Sahih, vol. 2, p. 219; the source of one of the abbreviated wordings of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn.
Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 2, p. 60; transmitter of al-Tabarani’s wording from Zayd ibn Arqam in the section of medium-length wordings.
Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal, vol. 1, pp. 166 and 168; transmitter of al-Tabarani’s wording from Zayd ibn Arqam and of the expression “khalifatayn” (“two successors”).
Ibn al-Maghazili, al-Manaqib, pp. 16–18; the source of the detailed sermon narrated from Zayd ibn Arqam in ‘Abaqat and Nafahat.
Al-Daylami, Firdaws al-Akhbar, vol. 1, p. 98 (as reported by Nafahat, with a closely similar transmission from Abu Sa‘id); the source of the family of short wordings concerning al-Thaqalayn.
Al-Sakhāwī, *Istijlāb Irtiqāʾ al-Ghuraf*; al-Samhūdī, *Jawāhir al-ʿIqdain*; Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, *al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Muḥriqah*; for an explicit statement regarding the multiplicity of chains and Companion narrators, see the citation in *Nafahāt al-Azhār*.
Author: Hamed Sarem
Related articles
Mehr 15, 1404 AP
“Reinforcing the Critiques: A Scholarly Analysis Refuting the Claim of the Legitimacy of the First Caliphs” (13) The Rational Necessity of Infallibility: From the Tragedy of Malik ibn Nuwayra to the Crisis of Caliphal LegitimacyAuthor: Hamed Sarem
Mordad 21, 1405 AP
A Critical Analysis of Ibn Taymiyyah’s Objections to the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and an Evaluation of Mir Hamid Husayn’s Responses in Abaqat al-AnwarAuthor: Hamed Sarem
Comments
No comments yet.