A Scholarly Analysis of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Biographical-Rijal Criticisms of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Reconsideration in Light of the Firm Arguments of ‘Abaqat al-Anwar
Author: Hamed Sarem
The noble Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, as a firm pillar in Islam’s doctrinal system and a prophetic text establishing the authority of the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt, has continually been the focus of hadith scholars and the target of attacks by sectarian critics. Among these, Ibn al-Jawzī’s isnād-based critique in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah, as an attempt to cast doubt on the validity of this mutawātir text, forms the central subject of this study. Employing an analytical-critical approach, the present article demonstrates that Ibn al-Jawzī’s scholarly practice was founded not on precise biographical-evaluative standards, but rather on “biased selection” and the “disregard of decisive evidence.”
The argumentative foundation and abundant source of this study is the boundless ocean of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, the astonishing work of the eminent Sayyid, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn Nīshāpūrī. With remarkable precision and commendable inductive inquiry, it has lifted the veil from Ibn al-Jawzī’s weak interpretations and biased premises, and has established the probative force of this hadith with definitive certainty through mutawātir chains of transmission.
A comparative examination of the views of leading Sunni hadith scholars—including Ibn Ḥajar, al-Sakhāwī, and al-Samhūdī—also confirms that Ibn al-Jawzī’s critique was not only rejected by the foremost scholars of this school, but was condemned as a methodological error and an unforgivable oversight. Finally, by invalidating the bases of Ibn al-Jawzī’s weakening judgment, this study considers the tawātur of the Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn in the Islamic heritage to be established and beyond objection, and emphasizes its centrality in holding fast to the Two Weighty Things.
The noble Hadith of al-Thaqalayn is among the foundational traditions in Islam’s hadith heritage. Owing to its numerous transmissions, its presence in authoritative sources, and the explicit attestations of a number of eminent hadith masters and scholars, it has consistently held a firm place within the intellectual framework of Muslims. The preceding article demonstrated that Ibn al-Jawzi’s weakening of this hadith is incompatible with the accepted principles of hadith criticism in the Sunni tradition, for the Thaqalayn report appears in the “reliable compilations,” including Sahih Muslim and other trusted sources, and a group of leading authorities in hadith and narrator evaluation have explicitly affirmed its soundness and probative value. Accordingly, Ibn al-Jawzi’s objection to this hadith was, from the outset, insufficiently robust in the face of a network of recurrent and consensual corroborations.
Nevertheless, the critical examination of Ibn al-Jawzi’s statement does not end here. Beyond the general flaw affecting the very basis of his weakening, he has also invoked objections concerning certain chains of transmission, objections that themselves require an independent and precise analysis. Hence, as a continuation of the previous discussion, the present article examines Ibn al-Jawzi’s finer, particular criticisms of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn—criticisms that must be assessed separately from biographical-evaluative, hadith-critical, and methodological perspectives—in order to determine whether they are capable of withstanding the abundant evidence for the hadith’s authenticity.
Building on the same documented and comparative approach adopted in the first article, this study seeks to show that Ibn al-Jawzi’s particular objections not only fail to withstand the multiplicity of transmission routes and the explicit attestations of hadith masters, but in many instances arise from failing to consider the totality of the routes, overlooking corroborating indicators, and departing from the precise methodology of the great hadith scholars. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to move the critique of Ibn al-Jawzi from the general level to the particular level and, through a careful examination of narrators, chains of transmission, and balancing evidence, demonstrate that his objections at this stage likewise do not establish the weakness of the hadith.
Thus, the present article is a logical continuation of the preceding study. It seeks to reconsider Ibn al-Jawzi’s critique not only at the macro level, but also at the level of specific chains of transmission, so that it may become clear that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, in light of the totality of its routes and corroborating evidence, possesses a solidity that cannot be undermined by limited and subjective objections.
In continuing the examination of Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticisms, we now turn to a detailed study of his disparagement of “‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d,” a narrator who, despite his virtue and steadfastness, has been the target of prejudicial attacks.
1. Response to Ibn al-Jawzi’s Disparagement and Objection Concerning “‘Atiyyah”
Relying on certain disparaging assessments, Ibn al-Jawzi seeks to portray ‘Atiyyah as unreliable, overlooking the fact that this narrator’s authentication by leading authorities in rijal relegates such criticism to the margins.
Ibn Sa‘d’s authentication of ‘Atiyyah: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani reports in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib from Ibn Sa‘d that al-Hajjaj ordered ‘Atiyyah to be compelled to revile Imam ‘Ali (a); should he refuse, he was to receive 400 lashes and have his beard shaved. ‘Atiyyah refused to revile him, and the sentence was carried out. Despite this incident, Ibn Sa‘d explicitly states that ‘Atiyyah was “trustworthy” (thiqah) and transmitted acceptable hadiths. The author stresses that, given Ibn Sa‘d’s anti-Ahl al-Bayt inclinations—to the point that he even deemed Imam al-Sadiq (a) weak—his authentication of ‘Atiyyah constitutes decisive evidence for this narrator’s reliability and trustworthiness. Those who do not regard him as an authority display prejudice and deviation far greater than that of Ibn Sa‘d.
2. ‘Atiyyah’s Presence among the Narrators of Musnad Ahmad
Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrates only from trustworthy transmitters: ‘Atiyyah is among the narrators in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Taqi al-Din al-Subki, in Shifa’ al-Asqam, explicitly states that Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrates only from “trustworthy” (thiqah) individuals. To establish this claim, al-Subki cites Ibn Taymiyyah’s own statement, in which he acknowledged that Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like Malik, was among the hadith scholars who transmitted hadith only from narrators they themselves considered reliable. Therefore, in light of opponents’ admission of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s rigor in selecting transmitters, his narration from ‘Atiyyah in Musnad Ahmad establishes ‘Atiyyah’s trustworthiness and leaves no room for criticism or objection against this narrator.
3. Further Examination of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Narration from ‘Atiyyah
Since it has been established that Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrates only from “trustworthy” (thiqah) individuals, no doubt remains concerning the reliability of ‘Atiyyah. Whether Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated from him through an intermediary or directly, in either case, according to his hadith methodology, this transmission indicates Ahmad’s trust in ‘Atiyyah.
4. Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Numerous Narrations from ‘Atiyyah’ and Evidence of His Reliability
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, transmitted numerous narrations from ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d. More importantly, he himself recorded the Hadith al-Thaqalayn through this very narrator, on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri.
The late Mir Hamid Husayn, in ‘Abaqat al-Anwar, relying on precise reports, cites the statement of Abu Musa al-Madini in Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah (as transmitted from ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Subki), which explicitly states: “Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrated only from those whose truthfulness and piety had been established in his view, not from those against whose trustworthiness any criticism or objection could be raised.” The conclusion is that, on the basis of such a principle—endorsed by Hanbali scholars themselves—attributing the weakening of ‘Atiyyah to Ahmad ibn Hanbal is far removed from the truth. It is deeply astonishing that Ibn al-Jawzi, despite his affiliation with the Hanbali school, closed his eyes to the hadith-critical method of the imam of his own school in the course of denying the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), and advanced such an unfounded and extravagant claim concerning the Musnad; as though theological partisanship had driven him into methodological error.
5. The Authentication of ‘Atiyyah by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, in Contrast to His Grandfather
One of the illuminating points addressed in the research of ‘Abaqat is the explicit affirmation by the hafiz “Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi” (Ibn al-Jawzi’s grandson) of ‘Atiyyah’s reliability, which in practice challenges his grandfather’s criticism.
In Tadhkirat Khawas al-Ummah, while transmitting the hadith of “the permissibility of entering the mosque for Amir al-Mu’minin (a),” Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, upon encountering ‘Atiyyah’s name in the chain of transmission, undertakes to answer the doubt concerning his alleged weakness. This approach by the grandson indicates that Ibn al-Jawzi’s weakenings were regarded—even by those close to him and by discerning hadith scholars who had grown up within the same school—as an unacademic and unjustified practice. (The continuation of Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi’s argumentative response will be analyzed in later sections.)
6. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi’s Defense of ‘Atiyyah’s Reliability and the Removal of the Doubt Concerning His Disparagement
In response to his grandfather’s disparagement, the hadith master Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi stresses the trustworthiness of ‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi and considers the criticism of him to arise from conflating juristic discussions with narrator-criticism discussions.
According to ‘Abaqat al-Anwar, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi holds that ‘Atiyyah—who was fortunate enough to study under Ibn ‘Abbas and other Companions—was a “trustworthy” transmitter. He notes that if certain hadith scholars, such as al-Bukhari, used expressions such as “novel” or “strange” regarding ‘Atiyyah’s hadiths (concerning rulings related to the mosque), this stemmed from their juristic disagreement over the permissibility of a person in a state of major ritual impurity passing through a mosque. It did not mean that ‘Atiyyah was weak in precision or probity; therefore, Ibn al-Jawzi erred by conflating juristic premises with the principles of narrator criticism.
7. Refuting the Claim That Yahya ibn Ma‘in Declared Him Weak
One of Ibn al-Jawzi’s methods for impugning ‘Atiyyah’s standing is his reliance on the claim that Yahya ibn Ma‘in declared him weak—a claim that appears wholly untenable in light of the evidence in ‘Abaqat.
The late Mir Hamid Husayn explicitly demonstrates that “‘Abbas al-Duri”—himself one of the foremost hadith scholars and absolutely trustworthy—reports from Yahya ibn Ma‘in that ‘Atiyyah was a “righteous” person and “reliable” in hadith. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar likewise records this statement in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, in ‘Atiyyah’s biographical entry. When Yahya ibn Ma‘in’s documented statement indicates that ‘Atiyyah was “righteous,” Ibn al-Jawzi’s reliance on weak or flawed reports in this matter has no scholarly or narrator-critical value whatsoever.
8. Atiyyah’s Place in the Six Canonical Collections and the Impasse of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Critique
Atiyyah is among the transmitters found in authoritative books that hold an eminent standing among Ahl al-Sunnah, from al-Bukhari’s al-Adab al-Mufrad to Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Abi Dawud.
A highly important point emphasized by Mir Hamid Husayn is that al-Tirmidhi himself transmitted the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn through Atiyyah in his own sound collection. When a work committed to authenticity (Sahih al-Tirmidhi) publishes a report transmitted by Atiyyah, Ibn al-Jawzi, by declaring him weak, strikes at the very foundations of the اعتبار of his own school’s authoritative books. In practice, Ibn al-Jawzi’s weakening is not a scholarly critique, but a deviant tendency that conflicts even with Ahl al-Sunnah’s own rigorous standards.
9. The Collapse of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Critique through Multiple Evidences (Atiyyah’s Lack of Solitary Transmission)
Ibn al-Jawzi’s effort to undermine the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn by attacking Atiyyah is, in essence, a futile struggle against the truth, for Atiyyah is not alone in transmitting this hadith from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri.
Even if—on the impossible assumption—Atiyyah were deemed unreliable, the abundance of other transmitters and chains through which this hadith has been related prevents a chain-based criticism of one transmitter from destabilizing the entire report. This shows that Ibn al-Jawzi was seeking pretexts to impugn a hadith whose authenticity had already been affirmed by the consensus of both the early and later generations.
10. Refuting the Claim of ‘Atiyyah’s Solitary Transmission and the Groundlessness of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Critique
One of Ibn al-Jawzi’s errors is his unwarranted insistence on the solitary transmission of ‘Atiyyah in reporting the hadith from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri; yet this claim is far removed from the historical realities of hadith transmission.
The late Mir Hamid Husayn, in ‘Abaqat, demonstrates—by referring to reliable sources such as Istijlāb Irtiqāʾ al-Ghuraf (al-Sakhawi), Jawahir al-‘Aqdayn (al-Samhudi), Wasilat al-Maʾal (Ibn Bakathir), and al-Sirat al-Sawi (al-Shaykhani al-Qadiri)—that Abu al-Tufayl, one of the Companions, also transmitted this very hadith from Abu Sa‘id. Conclusion: when another chain exists at the level of the Companions, a chain-based objection to one narrator (‘Atiyyah) fundamentally loses its relevance as a means of invalidating the hadith. By disregarding these routes, Ibn al-Jawzi has shown that, more than engaging in “scholarly criticism,” he was seeking “pretexts for weakening” the hadith.
11. The Mass Transmission of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn: Beyond Confinement to a Single Chain
Even if we accept Ibn al-Jawzi’s impossible assumption—that ‘Atiyyah was weak and that Abu Sa‘id was the sole transmitter of the hadith—this still would not impair the hadith’s authenticity.
According to the explicit statements of leading scholars, the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn has been narrated by more than 20 Companions. This abundance elevates the hadith to the rank of “tawatur” (mass transmission), a rank which, in the sciences of hadith, requires no examination of every individual narrator, since certainty that the hadith was issued by the Prophet (PBUH) has been attained. By concentrating on the weakness of a single narrator in one route, Ibn al-Jawzi fell into the error of “excessive atomism” and neglected to see “the entirety of the transmitted heritage.”
12. A Response to Ibn al-Jawzi’s Criticism of “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs”
In pursuit of his objective, Ibn al-Jawzi also attacked other transmitters and, among them, made “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs” the target of hadith-critical scrutiny—an allegation refuted by the biographical evidence concerning transmitters.
The late Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn, citing al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl (by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Maqdisī), notes that this transmitter was deemed trustworthy by “Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ibn al-Ṭabbāʿ.” According to Ibn ʿAdī’s report from him, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs was “trustworthy” (thiqa). This biographical precision in ʿAbaqāt aptly demonstrates that Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticisms rested not upon the firm principles of the science of transmitter evaluation, but upon his intellectual presuppositions and theological prejudices.
13. The Firm Reliability of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs in the Balance of Biographical Criticism
Another of Ibn al-Jawzi’s fallacious lines of argument is his weakening of “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs,” whose groundlessness is established by the precise documentation of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
Ibn al-Ṭabbāʿ’s attestation: al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā ibn al-Ṭabbāʿ—whom al-Dhahabī described as a “great ḥāfiẓ” and “trustworthy,” emphasizing his extraordinary command of the chapters of hadith, based on 40,000 memorized hadiths—explicitly deemed ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs “trustworthy” (thiqa). Ibn ʿAdī likewise transmitted this attestation from Ibn al-Ṭabbāʿ, itself an indication of the influence of this judgment among the leading authorities of hadith. Ibn Ḥibbān’s attestation and the argument a fortiori: with insight, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn regards Ibn Ḥibbān’s inclusion of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs in his book al-Thiqāt as decisive proof. The key point here is the “identity of the one issuing the attestation”: Ibn Ḥibbān, himself among the well-known Nāṣibīs and a fierce enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (a)—as his offensive remarks concerning Imam al-Riḍā (a) are recorded in biographical works—has no motive to authenticate a Shiʿi transmitter. Thus, when he considers someone such as ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs trustworthy, this attestation is conclusive and binding upon Shiʿi opponents; for even their most spiteful figures cannot exclude him from the circle of their own reliable transmitters.
14. Concluding Remarks: The Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn within the Impregnable Fortress of Tawātur
Ultimately, it must be said that Ibn al-Jawzī’s attempt to undermine the noble Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn is akin to a futile battle against a light that has shone forth through numerous channels.
Beyond all discussions concerning the chains of transmission of ʿAṭiyyah and ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs, the “tawātur” of this tradition—reported by more than 20 Companions—is a fact that relegates every narrow and subjective criticism of Ibn al-Jawzī to the margins. Through this precise isnād criticism, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn teaches us that the Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn is not merely a simple report; rather, it is a firm pillar of Islamic teachings which, in the authoritative books of both parties, has established its status as the “Greater Weighty Thing” (al-Thaqal al-Akbar) through tawātur chains and diverse textual formulations.
The Authentication of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs by al-Bukhārī and the Refutation of Ibn al-Jawzī’s Criticisms
Ibn al-Jawzī’s claim regarding the weakness of “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs” is incompatible with the explicit statements of some leading Sunni hadith scholars. As al-Haythamī reports in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid from al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān, both of them deemed ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs trustworthy; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī likewise reports in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb from al-Bukhārī that he considered him “fundamentally truthful” (ṣadūq), though he added that he had also narrated from certain weak transmitters.
Although such reports may ultimately be regarded, in the view of some critics, as indicating “weakness in the selection of shaykhs,” they are by no means equivalent to the سقوط of the narrator’s personal integrity. Moreover, as Sunni scholars themselves have explicitly stated, al-Bukhārī’s transmission of hadith from narrators—especially when they are included among his transmitters—is an important indication of their reliability. Accordingly, criticism of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs appears unfounded in light of this authenticating evidence. Since he is also among the transmitters of the Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, this criticism cannot cast serious doubt upon the tradition itself.
The Presence of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs in al-Bukhārī’s Muʿallaqāt and Its Indication of His Reliability
ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs is also included among the narrators of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in its muʿallaqāt; as indicated by the symbol «خت» in works such as al-Kāshif, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, and Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb.
More important than the fact of this inclusion itself is the principle advanced by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in the introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārī: in his view, al-Bukhārī’s transmission from a narrator entails that narrator’s probity and truthfulness; and if the transmission occurs in the book’s «uṣūl» (main body), its indication of the narrator’s authentication is stronger. Even if the narration appears in the muʿallaqāt, supporting reports, or follow-up narrations, the fundamental presumption of that narrator’s «truthfulness» remains intact. Ibn Ḥajar explicitly states that external criticisms are not accepted in the face of this implicit authentication unless the reason for the disparagement is clearly stated and relates to a defect affecting the narrator’s probity or precision.
Accordingly, when Ibn al-Jawzī relies on criticisms directed at ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs, he encounters a serious obstacle: for the very principles of Bukhārī studies and Sunni hadith commentary have placed such a narrator beyond the reach of facile disparagement. Therefore, this weakening has neither sufficient evidence nor consistency with the methodology of Sunni hadith scholars.
ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs Is among al-Tirmidhī’s Narrators
In addition to what has preceded, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs is also included among the narrators of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Tirmidhī; as indicated by the symbol «ت» in works such as al-Kāshif and Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb. This point itself is further evidence that weakening him in absolute terms is incompatible with the reality of hadith transmission in the authoritative hadith collections.
The Criticism of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs Does Not Impair the Hadith
Even assuming that ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs was deemed a compromised transmitter by some critics, this does not harm the foundational status of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn. First, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs was not alone in transmitting this hadith from al-Aʿmash; rather, others, such as Muḥammad ibn Ṭalḥah ibn Miṣraf al-Yāmī and Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl ibn Ghazwān al-Ḍabbī, also narrated it from al-Aʿmash.
Moreover, al-Aʿmash himself was not alone in transmitting the hadith from ʿAṭiyyah; rather, another group narrated it from him, including: ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Abī Sulaymān Maysarah al-ʿAzramī, Abū Isrāʾīl Ismāʿīl ibn Khalīfah al-ʿAbsī al-Mulāʾī, Hārūn ibn Saʿd al-ʿIjlī, and Kathīr ibn Ismāʿīl al-Taymī al-Nawwāʾ.
It thus becomes clear that, even if one link in the chain is criticized, the multiplicity of routes and transmitters prevents the hadith from being discredited. Therefore, Ibn al-Jawzī’s statement yields no basis whatsoever for weakening this report. Rather, a careful consideration of all its routes makes evident that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn possesses a solidity far beyond being shaken by criticism directed at one or two transmitters.
The Ambiguity of the Criticism of Ibn Dāhir and Its Sectarian Motives
Ibn al-Jawzī’s criticism of “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dāhir,” namely that he had “no standing” with Aḥmad and Yaḥyā, is methodologically flawed even if the attribution of these statements is assumed to be sound. Such forms of criticism are “ambiguous,” and according to the precise rules of the science of narrator evaluation—as also explained in al-Suyūṭī’s al-Tadrīb—an ambiguous criticism is unacceptable unless the specific reason for the disparagement is clarified. Furthermore, an examination of the critics’ statements shows that the principal cause of some scholars’ suspicion toward Ibn Dāhir was his frequent transmission of reports concerning the virtues of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿa). Al-Dhahabī reports from Ibn ʿAdī: “He is accused in this matter [the virtues of ʿAlī].” It is evident that such criticism stems from sectarian bias and hostility toward the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa), and is therefore devoid of evidentiary value.
Ibn Dāhir’s Irrelevance to the Authentic Chains of Transmission of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn
It is remarkable that Ibn al-Jawzī, relying on weak and questionable chains of transmission, seeks to cast doubt upon the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn, whereas “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dāhir” and even “ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Quddūs” do not appear in the principal and authoritative chains of this hadith in Sunni hadith collections (such as Musnad Aḥmad, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and Sunan al-Tirmidhī). The inclusion of these individuals’ names in a chain is confined solely to the particular route that Ibn al-Jawzī selected in order to establish his prior assumption. By disregarding the sound routes of this hadith in authoritative books, he has in practice committed “deception” and exposed his ill intent under the guise of narrator criticism.
Sunni Authorities’ Condemnation of Ibn al-Jawzī’s Approach
Because of this very unacademic approach, leading Sunni scholars have criticized Ibn al-Jawzī. Among them, Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī (his grandson), in al-Tadhkirah, while transmitting the sound narration of this hadith from Musnad Aḥmad, criticized his grandfather. He explicitly states that none of those whom his grandfather declared weak occurs in the authoritative chains, and that even assuming such a narration existed in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah, Ibn al-Jawzī had overlooked the definitive routes found in Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Tirmidhī. By expressing astonishment that this fact had remained hidden from his grandfather, Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī effectively affirms the soundness of the text of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn and the weakness of his arguments.
Al-Sakhāwī and al-Samhūdī’s Condemnation of Ibn al-Jawzī’s Approach
In addition to the criticism of “Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī,” other eminent Sunni hadith scholars also objected to this act of Ibn al-Jawzī. Expressing astonishment at the inclusion of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah, al-Sakhāwī states: “I was surprised that Ibn al-Jawzī included this hadith in al-ʿIlal; more astonishing still is his claim that this hadith is not sound, despite its numerous routes, some of which are also mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.” Al-Samhūdī likewise warns the reader more explicitly: “Among the astonishing matters is Ibn al-Jawzī’s mention of this hadith in al-ʿIlal; so beware lest you be deceived by him, for it is as though he did not remember [the other routes of the hadith] at that time.”
A Critique of Giving Ibn al-Jawzi the Benefit of the Doubt and an Elucidation of His Bad Faith
Although some leading scholars, such as al-Samhudi, construed Ibn al-Jawzi’s oversight as arising from “good faith” and attributed it to forgetfulness, this analysis is incompatible with Ibn al-Jawzi’s scholarly standing. How could a hadith scholar possessing such mastery and breadth of knowledge have remained unaware of the numerous chains of transmission for the Hadith al-Thaqalayn in primary sources such as Musnad Ahmad, Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Tirmidhi, al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, al-Tabarani’s Muʿjams, and dozens of other sources? The lengthy list of these sources—from the Musnad of Ibn Rahuyah to Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi’s chains for the Hadith al-Thaqalayn—shows that Ibn al-Jawzi had access to all of these chains.
The logical conclusion is that his aim was not “scholarly criticism,” but rather “deceiving the reader.” He deliberately sought, by presenting the hadith as confined to one particular defective chain, to lead the reader to believe that the Hadith al-Thaqalayn lacked authority. Yet God Almighty, through scholars of his own religious affiliation, exposed this deception and made his bad faith evident to those engaged in research. He so intended, but God disclosed his secret and tore away his veil at the hands of his own co-religionists. And praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.
Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani and His Explicit Statement of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Error in Weakening the Hadith al-Thaqalayn
In al-Sawaʿiq al-Muhriqah, and likewise in Tatimmat al-Sawaʿiq, Ibn Hajar, after citing the Hadith al-Thaqalayn from certain reliable sources, clearly demonstrates that Ibn al-Jawzi’s inclusion of this hadith in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanahiyah and his subsequent weakening of it rested on an oversight or lack of awareness of the other chains of transmission. He states that Ibn al-Jawzi acted thus because he did not recall the other chains of the hadith, whereas this hadith is also narrated in Sahih Muslim from Zayd ibn Arqam; consequently, it cannot be deemed an unfounded hadith.
Ibn Hajar then proceeds, citing the statements of hadith scholars and the multiplicity of transmission chains, to corroborate and establish this hadith. In Tatimmat al-Sawaʿiq, he states even more explicitly that Ibn al-Jawzi, in including this hadith in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanahiyah, “did not follow the correct path”; that is, he erred in his judgment concerning this hadith and should not have placed it among hadiths deemed objectionable or devoid of validity.
Implications of This Statement
Ibn Hajar’s position is significant in two respects:
1. Refuting Ibn al-Jawzi’s Grading of Weakness
By citing multiple transmission routes and noting the presence of the hadith in Sahih Muslim, Ibn Hajar effectively invalidates Ibn al-Jawzi’s claim.
2. Emphasizing the Multiplicity of the Hadith’s Transmission Routes
His statement shows that the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn does not rest solely on a single weak chain of transmission; rather, it has been transmitted through many routes and is found in authoritative Sunni sources.
After al-Sakhawi, al-Samhudi, and Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Hajar too must now be counted among Ibn al-Jawzi’s critics. He explicitly states that Ibn al-Jawzi’s weakening of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn resulted from a methodological error and his failure to take account of the hadith’s numerous chains of transmission. This once again demonstrates that Ibn al-Jawzi’s critique was neither exceptional nor accepted among Sunni hadith scholars; rather, leading figures of this school themselves regarded it as erroneous.
Analytical Conclusion: The Outcome of Biographical Criticism and the Establishment of the Tawatur of the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn
A critical examination of Ibn al-Jawzi’s treatment of the “Hadith of al-Thaqalayn” in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah reveals, beyond a merely technical discussion of narrator criticism, a “strategic error” in hadith methodology. Analysis of the evidence presented and the views of foremost Sunni hadith scholars conclusively establishes the following results:
1. The Invalidity of the Method of “Biased Selection” in Hadith Criticism
Ibn al-Jawzi’s method of weakening the Hadith of al-Thaqalayn rests on the fallacy of “begging the question.” By disregarding dozens of sound and reliable chains found in rigorously compiled hadith collections (such as Sahih Muslim and the principal Musnads), he deliberately turned only to chains whose narrators were contested. This “selective construction of chains” is not a scholarly approach, but an attempt to undermine a text that, by the consensus of hadith scholars, occupies an elevated and unassailable position.
2. The Lack of Scholarly Validity in Ibn al-Jawzi’s Disparagements
Ibn al-Jawzi’s disparagement of transmitters such as “ʿAbd Allah ibn Dahir” is flawed not only in light of the rules of hadith studies—owing to its ambiguity and failure to explain the cause of the impugning—but also because it is rooted in sectarian animosity and his exclusionary tendencies. Reports by historians and hadith scholars (such as al-Dhahabi) show that such criticisms, rather than being based on “weakness in precision and retention,” arose from “abundant transmission concerning the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿa)”; a form of impugning that, from the standpoint of scholarly principles, has no probative value.
3. Testimony of Leading Sunni Authorities against Ibn al-Jawzi
Comparing Ibn al-Jawzi’s approach with the views of other prominent Sunni authorities—such as Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Sakhawi, al-Samhudi, and Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani—clearly shows that his critique was not only rejected by the Sunni scholarly community, but was also condemned by leading figures of that school. The fact that major hadith scholars regarded his conduct as stemming from “delusion,” “heedlessness,” or even “lack of correctness” testifies that Ibn al-Jawzi, in adopting this position, acted contrary to the requirements of scholarly integrity and comprehensive investigation.
4. The Definitive and Mutawatir Status of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn
The final outcome of this examination is the complete soundness of the “Hadith al-Thaqalayn.” The abundance of its chains in the Sahih collections and Musnads is such that it has elevated the report from the rank of “khabar al-wahid” to that of “tawatur.” Accordingly, even if all the transmitters in the chain targeted by Ibn al-Jawzi were counted among the weak, this would not cast any doubt upon the body of this hadith, for the authority of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn rests upon numerous chains whose authenticity is established and definitive in the view of all fair-minded Muslim scholars.
In conclusion, Ibn al-Jawzi’s effort not only failed to weaken this noble hadith; rather, the sharp reaction of his coreligionists made the truth of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn and the methodological weakness of its critic still clearer to seekers of truth in the field of hadith. This is the hand of divine providence, which removes the veil from scholarly deceptions.
