From Holding Fast to Protection from Going Astray after the Prophet: Reexamining the Third Aspect of the Evidentiary Significance of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār
If the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things merely enjoined love for the Ahl al-Bayt, why did the Prophet connect it with “not going astray after him”? In seeking to dissociate this hadith from the question of the imamate, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī argues that not everything to which one holds fast necessarily possesses supreme leadership. But the central question is this: can “holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny” be separated from the role that the hadith itself assigns to them in guiding the community after the Prophet? The third argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār proceeds precisely from this point: the point at which the dispute is no longer over a single word, but over the function that the Prophet assigned to the Qurʾan and his progeny in the community’s future.
Abstract
The Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is among the most important textual proofs cited by the Imāmiyya in discussing the standing of the Ahl al-Bayt after the Noble Prophet, may God bless him and his family. In Tuḥfa-yi Ithnā ʿAshariyya, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī accepts the fundamental obligation to hold fast to the Ahl al-Bayt but claims that this hadith has no connection with the question of supreme leadership and the imamate, since merely being that to which one holds fast does not entail possessing the station of leadership and authority. In ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn advances several arguments in criticism of this view, the third of which focuses on the connection between holding fast to the Qurʾan and the Prophet’s progeny and not going astray after the Prophet.
Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the third argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār and seeks to demonstrate that its focus is not merely to establish the meaning of holding fast or the obligation to follow, but to examine the guiding function of this adherence within the structure of the hadith, “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“As long as you hold fast to the two of them, you will never go astray after me”). To this end, it first analyzes the hadith’s conditional construction and the role of the dual pronoun in referring back to the Qurʾan and the Prophet’s progeny; it then examines evidence from Sunni scholars such as Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī, Ḥusām al-Dīn al-Sahāranpūrī, and Thanāʾ Allāh al-Pānīpatī.
The study’s findings indicate that, in this argument, the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār does not base his reasoning solely on Sunni scholars’ acceptance of Imāmī premises; rather, he draws on the shared elements in their statements to bind the opponent to the implications of his own commitments and to reinforce the hadith’s apparent meaning. This evidence shows that, in the understanding of a number of Sunni commentators, holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny is connected with concepts such as receiving guidance, following an example, serving as an exemplar, holding firmly in matters of religion, and following after the Prophet’s death. Accordingly, the claim that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is entirely unrelated to the question of authoritative guidance after the Prophet is untenable in light of the hadith’s internal structure and the available interpretive indications, although establishing other detailed questions concerning the imamate requires examining further independent arguments in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
Keywords: Hadith of the Two Weighty Things; ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār; Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī; holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny; Ahl al-Bayt; imamate; authoritative guidance; obligation to follow.
1. Introduction: The Place of the Third Argument in the Sixty-Six-Argument Project
This study is a direct continuation of the two preceding articles on the initial arguments concerning the implications of Hadith al-Thaqalayn in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār. The first article, entitled “Is Hadith al-Thaqalayn Unrelated to the Imamate?”, examined the first argument and concluded that, in the statements of a number of Sunni scholars, “holding fast to the ʿitrah” is not reduced to mere love and veneration, but also encompasses such concepts as seeking guidance, taking as exemplars, following, learning, and acquiring knowledge. The second article, entitled “From That Which Is Held Fast To to ‘Following Them as One Follows the Qur’an’,” examined the second argument independently and demonstrated that, at this stage, the author of ʿAbaqāt makes the degree and binding character of following the ʿitrah, rather than the principle of following them itself, the subject of his argument; that is, following the ʿitrah is placed alongside following the Qur’an in respect of obligation and necessity.
The present article is devoted exclusively to the third argument. This delimitation of the subject is essential to an accurate understanding of the argumentative architecture of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, because the sixty-six arguments that Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn advances concerning the implications of Hadith al-Thaqalayn are not verbal repetitions of a single argument; rather, each reveals an independent or complementary aspect of the hadith’s implications. Some of these arguments rely on earlier premises, yet test ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī’s sweeping claim from a fresh perspective. Accordingly, discussions concerning the designation “al-Thaqalayn,” “holding fast” (iʿtiṣām), non-separation, infallibility, preeminence in knowledge, and the other implications that the author of ʿAbaqāt pursues in subsequent arguments must be examined in their proper places, while preserving their argumentative independence.
The necessity of examining this argument independently becomes apparent from the fact that any judgment about the relationship between Hadith al-Thaqalayn and the imamate will be incomplete without an analysis of all the indications bearing on meaning within the hadith itself. In particular, when it is claimed that the hadith has “no bearing” on the imamate, every indication that explains the nature of the community’s relationship with the ʿitrah after the Prophet must be considered and assessed independently.
The principal question of the third argument is this: after the first argument established that holding fast to the ʿitrah entails guidance and taking them as exemplars, and the second assessed the degree of this following in respect of obligation and necessity in relation to following the Qur’an, what new contribution does the phrase “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“so long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me”) make to the argument? The answer offered by the author of ʿAbaqāt rests on two interconnected elements: the “guiding function” of holding fast and its “temporal horizon.” In this formulation, the Noble Prophet links holding fast to the Qur’an and the ʿitrah with the community’s remaining protected from error, and extends this function to the period after himself through the qualification “بعدي” (“after me”). Thus, the issue is not merely the principle of holding fast or the obligation to follow; it concerns an authority which, within the structure of the hadith itself, holding fast to alongside the Qur’an leads to freedom from error after the Prophet. It is precisely this independent aspect that distinguishes the third argument from the preceding two and must be assessed separately against Dihlawī’s claim.
The importance of this point becomes greater when the form of Dihlawī’s response is considered. He claims that Hadith al-Thaqalayn “has no bearing” on the Shiʿi claim concerning the imamate; yet such a sweeping negation possesses scholarly force only when all the indications that affect the hadith’s meaning, particularly those within the text itself, have been examined and addressed. Expressions such as “holding fast,” the dual pronoun “بهما” (“to them both”), the consequence “لن تضلوا” (“you will never go astray”), and the qualification “بعدي” (“after me”) are neither external elements nor theological additions introduced by the Imāmī Shiʿa; rather, they are components of the hadith itself and play a direct role in determining the nature of the community’s relationship with the Qur’an and the ʿitrah. Accordingly, one cannot exclude them from the hadith’s actual structure, then reduce “that which is held fast to” to a general and neutral concept, and, on the basis of this reduced formulation, conclude that the hadith is unrelated to the question of the imamate and religious authority.
In a scholarly critique, particularly one directed at the foundations of a theological school, the critic is obliged to consider the most important evidence invoked by the opposing side and to address the strongest formulation of its argument. If explicit internal textual evidence that bears on the argument is overlooked, the issue is no longer merely a disagreement over conclusions; the adequacy of the research method also becomes open to question. Such a situation indicates either a serious deficiency in the exhaustive examination of the evidence or the selective and systematic exclusion of evidence incompatible with a conclusion accepted in advance. In either case, without examining this evidence, the claim of “having no bearing” (عدم مساس) cannot be accepted as the outcome of a comprehensive and methodical assessment. The third line of argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār proceeds precisely from this point, seeking to demonstrate that the guidance-oriented structure of “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“As long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me”) cannot be disregarded when assessing the relationship between the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn) and the imamate.
2. Research Source and Approach
The principal source for this study is the text of the third line of argument concerning the implications of Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn in volume twenty of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, printed pages 33–37, corresponding to pages 44–48 of the PDF file used. In this article, ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār is not merely a source from which to quote a few passages or draw historical evidence; it is the central text of the study and the principal subject of its rereading. The breadth of its investigation, its consultation of numerous works by Sunni scholars, its quotation of their statements within the argument, and its effort to bind the opponent to conclusions on the basis of sources and premises that the opponent accepts are among the features that have given the discussions of Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn in this work a distinctive standing.
In ʿAbaqāt, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn generally does not confine himself to advancing a claim and citing a few supporting considerations; rather, he constructs his argument from a body of quotations, acknowledgments, interpretations of hadith, and their implications. An accurate understanding of his argument therefore requires examining the evidence not as isolated, disconnected items, but in relation to the central claim and the role each item plays in the overall argumentation. The present article likewise seeks to follow this course and, as far as possible, to preserve the sequence and internal logic of the argument advanced by the author of ʿAbaqāt.
Nevertheless, the language, manner of composition, and density of quotations in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār have made direct access to the complete argument difficult for many contemporary readers. One aim of this series of articles is to present the discussions in this work in a clearer and more accessible form, without diminishing scholarly precision or separating the evidence from its argumentative context. Accordingly, the original statements of the author of ʿAbaqāt and the evidence he invokes are quoted, after which the structure of the argument, the connection between its premises and conclusion, and the place of each piece of evidence are explained in more fluent language suited to contemporary scholarly writing.
This rereading does not mean replacing the words of the author of ʿAbaqāt with the article author's own formulation. The aim is to keep the boundaries between “quotation,” “explanation,” and “analysis” clear: first, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn's statements and supporting sources are presented; then, wherever the compressed wording, multiplicity of quotations, or mode of argumentation calls for explanation, the argument is reconstructed and analyzed. Moreover, wherever a piece of evidence used by the author of ʿAbaqāt does not accord with all the doctrinal premises of the Imāmiyya, this difference is not concealed. The value of such evidence in argumentation lies not in its acceptance of all Imāmī premises, but in its acceptance of the particular premise that the author of ʿAbaqāt employs to critique the opponent's claim.
When reproducing the text, the governing principle is likewise to preserve its content and the order of its expressions; spacing and punctuation are corrected only where necessary to improve readability. Sources such as Nafaḥāt al-Azhār are also used, where needed, to clarify the formulation of the argument or resolve ambiguities, but the primary basis of the analysis remains the text of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār itself.
3. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dihlawī’s Statement and the Point of Departure for the Third Argument
In response to the Imāmī argument based on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (al-Thaqalayn), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Dihlawī writes:
“This hadith, too, like the preceding hadiths, has no bearing on the claim, for it is not necessary that that to which one holds fast should possess supreme leadership.”
ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 20, p. 26; PDF: 37.
The core of al-Dihlawī’s response in this passage is to turn the specific case of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things into a general proposition: merely “being that to which one holds fast” does not warrant the conclusion of “supreme leadership.” Considered in the abstract, without regard to the particular features of the case, this proposition is not necessarily disputed, since not everything to which one holds fast in some way necessarily possesses the station of leadership. The central question, however, is whether “that to which one holds fast” in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is likewise merely an unqualified object of adherence, devoid of any further contextual indications, or whether the text of the hadith specifies attributes and functions for it that must be taken into account in the final assessment.
The central point of the critique advanced by the author of ʿAbaqāt begins precisely here. Dihlawī’s response can rebut the entire argument only if the distinctive features of this particular “object of adherence” have no bearing on the conclusion. Yet Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn seeks to show that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things does not introduce the ʿitra merely as something to which one may adhere; rather, this adherence is situated within a constellation of contextual indicators pertaining to guidance. One therefore cannot first remove these qualifications, treat the concept of an “object of adherence” as a generic category, and then apply the ruling pertaining to that generic category to the particular instance in the hadith.
The preceding two aspects have brought some of these qualifications to light. The first aspect showed that, in the interpretations of a number of Sunni scholars, “adherence to the ʿitra” entails being guided, taking them as exemplars, and following them. The second aspect went a step further and showed that, in the formulation of the author of ʿAbaqāt, this following stands alongside following the Quran in terms of obligation and necessity. The third aspect now introduces another contextual indicator into the argument: within the very structure of the hadith, adherence to the Quran and the ʿitra is linked to “not going astray after the Prophet.”
From this perspective, the question posed by the third aspect can be formulated more precisely as follows: can the same ruling that holds for any other object of adherence be applied to an “object of adherence” that the Prophet presented adherence to, together with the Quran, as a means of safeguarding the community against misguidance after him? In other words, the issue under discussion is no longer “being an object of adherence” in an unrestricted sense, but rather “being an object of adherence within the guiding structure of not going astray after the Prophet.”
The third aspect is therefore neither a repetition of the discussion of the meaning of “adherence” in the first aspect nor a restatement of the comparison between following the ʿitra and following the Quran in the second. What is new in this aspect is the connection between “adherence” and “not going astray,” as well as the extension of this function to the period “after the Prophet.” The author of ʿAbaqāt then reinforces this implication with several corroborating considerations: the multiplicity of transmission routes containing the wording “adherence,” Dihlawī’s own acceptance of the obligation to adhere, and the interpretations of a number of Sunni commentators who have explained adherence to the ʿitra in terms of being guided, taking them as exemplars, holding fast in matters of religion, and following them after the Prophet’s death.
Thus, the principal point of disagreement is not whether every “object of adherence” necessarily possesses supreme leadership; such a proposition is not, in the first place, what the author of ʿAbaqāt is arguing. The question is whether the particular object of adherence in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things can, despite the full set of qualifications and functions that the hadith itself assigns to it, be reduced to a generic and neutral “object of adherence.” The third aspect seeks to show that, so long as Dihlawī’s response has not accounted for these distinctive features, it has not addressed the hadith’s argument in its complete form.
4. The Full Text of the Third Aspect in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār
The author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār presents the third argument under the title “Evidence from the Statements of Scholars That the Prophet Enjoined Following the Ahl al-Bayt, and Its Necessary Connection with the Imamate.” The text of this section of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār is quoted without alteration:
“Argument 3: Evidence from the Statements of Scholars That the Prophet Enjoined Following the Ahl al-Bayt, and Its Necessary Connection with the Imamate
The third argument is that, in this noble hadith, His Eminence the Messenger—may God bless him and his noble family—has, through his eloquent statement, “So long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me” («ما إن تمسکتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدی»), made the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, manifest and evident to those possessed of understanding and discernment. The obligation to follow is a firm proof and a solid demonstration of the imamate and caliphate of these venerable figures; and the dust of humiliation and destruction is upon the heads of those who oppose these sanctified souls. The transmission routes of this noble hadith that include the word “holding fast” are too numerous to enumerate. A portion of them has already been presented above among the hadith source identifications of trustworthy hadith masters and the admonitions of reliable Sunni authorities. Praise be to God, Shāh Ṣāḥib, too, despite all his reprehensible prejudices, acknowledges that this noble hadith is evidence of the obligation to hold fast to the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, as is plain to anyone who examines his statements in this book. And God is the Protector against ruin and perdition.
As for the word “holding fast” in this noble hadith conveying the meaning of following, this is, praise be to God, clear and manifest from the explanations of the great Sunni investigators and learned, meticulous scholars. A portion of the statements of eminent Sunni scholars concerning the meaning of holding fast has already appeared in the first argument, and some further statements will also be cited here.” A fluent restatement of the third argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār
The third argument is that, in this noble hadith, the Noble Prophet, may God bless him and his family, made the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, clear to those possessed of understanding and reflection through his lucid and eloquent statement: “So long as you hold fast to them both, you will not go astray after me.” In the view of the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, this very obligation to follow constitutes firm evidence and a compelling demonstration of their imamate and caliphate.
He then notes that the transmission routes of this noble hadith containing the word “holding fast” are so numerous that it is impossible to enumerate them all. Some of these narrations have already been presented in the course of hadith examinations and source identifications by reputable Sunni hadith masters and scholars. Furthermore, according to the author of ʿAbaqāt, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Dihlawī, too—despite his opposition—has acknowledged that this hadith indicates the obligation to hold fast to the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them.
He then proceeds to explain the meaning of “holding fast” (tamassuk), stating that the fact that this term conveys the meaning of following and adherence in this hadith is also evident from the statements of many prominent Sunni scholars and researchers. Some of their statements concerning the meaning of holding fast were presented earlier under the first argument, and further examples of these statements will be quoted here.
5. A Re-examination of the Argument of the Author of ʿAbaqāt
At the beginning of the third argument, the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār takes as his point of departure the Prophetic statement, “As long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me” («ما إن تمسکتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدی»). In his view, this expression of the Noble Prophet is not merely an ethical recommendation concerning love or respect for the Ahl al-Bayt; rather, it has a guiding purpose, since holding fast to the Qurʾan and the Prophet’s progeny in this hadith is linked to a specific outcome: “not going astray after the Prophet.”
On this basis, Mīr Ḥāmid Ḥusayn maintains that the obligation to follow the Ahl al-Bayt is evident from the very structure of this Prophetic statement. When the Noble Prophet identifies holding fast to the Qurʾan and his progeny as the means of safeguarding the community against going astray after him, the progeny cannot, in this statement, occupy merely the position of an object of love and veneration; rather, they must have a distinctive role within the community’s framework of religious guidance.
After setting out this principle, the author of ʿAbaqāt addresses the question of the meaning of “holding fast.” He explicitly states that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn) has been transmitted through numerous chains with the term “holding fast,” and then turns to the statements of Sunni scholars to clarify the meaning of this expression. The purpose of these quotations is not to establish all the doctrinal foundations of Imami Shiʿism from their words; rather, it is to show that interpreting holding fast in terms of guidance, following, and taking as an example is not an interpretation alien to the context of the hadith.
Accordingly, the Sunni evidence cited in this argument serves two fundamental functions. The first is to hold the opponent to the implications of his own position, since, after accepting the principle that holding fast is obligatory, Dihlawī cannot detach it from every meaning pertaining to guidance. The second is to show that the author of ʿAbaqāt’s understanding of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is not an interpretation remote from its apparent meaning and based on external presuppositions; rather, it is also consistent with the understanding of a number of Muslim commentators and scholars.
In this respect, the statements of Sunni scholars in the third line of argument are not the principal basis of the reasoning; rather, they serve to reinforce the apparent meaning of the hadith and respond to Dihlawī’s claim. The argument of the author of ʿAbaqāt begins with the structure of the hadith itself: adherence to the two weighty trusts is presented jointly, and its outcome is identified as protection from misguidance after the Prophet.
6. Formulating the Argument of the Author of ʿAbaqāt
The argument advanced by the author of ʿAbaqāt in the third line of argument may be formulated as follows:
First premise: In the Hadith of the Two Weighty Trusts, the Noble Prophet links adherence to the Quran and the ʿitrah with the outcome that the community will not fall into misguidance after him: “ما إن تمسکتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدی” (“So long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me”).
Second premise: Placing the ʿitrah alongside the Quran in a directive concerning guidance, whose outcome is identified as freedom from misguidance after the Prophet, indicates that the ʿitrah has a role in this hadith that goes beyond mere love and reverence, and occupies a special position in guiding the community after the Prophet.
Conclusion: On the basis of this apparent meaning of the hadith, the ʿitrah possesses a role in guidance after the Prophet; and, in the view of the author of ʿAbaqāt, this obligation to follow them and their authority in matters of guidance are directly connected to the question of the imamate and caliphate of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Alongside this central argument, the author of ʿAbaqāt also draws on a body of supporting evidence. His citation of Sunni scholars’ statements concerning the meaning of holding fast, including their interpretation of it as seeking guidance, taking as an exemplar, and following, does not serve as an independent premise for establishing the central claim. Rather, it serves to demonstrate two points: first, that understanding the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in terms of guidance is neither an exclusive nor an imposed interpretation; and second, that Dehlawī’s claim that the hadith is unrelated to the question of the imamate cannot constitute a comprehensive assessment of the hadith’s implications without addressing these contextual indications.
Thus, the central focus of the third line of argument is neither merely the word “holding fast” nor solely the obligation to follow, but the particular connection the hadith establishes between holding fast to the Qur’an and the Prophet’s progeny and the community’s protection from misguidance after the Prophet. On the basis of this connection, the author of ʿAbaqāt raises the following question: can an authority whom the Prophet has identified, alongside the Qur’an, as one to whom holding fast prevents misguidance be regarded as entirely disconnected from religious authority and leadership after the Prophet?
7. The First Supporting Witness: Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (d. 1014 AH)—From Love to Seeking Guidance
Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī al-Harawī (d. 1014 AH) was a prominent Sunni scholar and hadith scholar of the eleventh century AH and a Hanafi jurist. His most important hadith work is Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, which is regarded as one of the well-known hadith commentaries. He disagrees with Shiʿi views on important theological questions such as the imamate, yet the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār draws on some of his explicit statements concerning the meaning of holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny to establish that this expression in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things has an apparent meaning pertaining to guidance.
In Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī writes in his commentary on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things:
“Ibn al-Malak said: Holding fast to the Book means acting upon what it contains, namely, complying with God’s commands and refraining from what He prohibits. Holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny means loving them and being guided by their guidance and conduct. My master Jamāl al-Dīn added: Provided that it does not contravene the religion. I say: The unqualified nature of his statement—may God bless him and grant him peace—suggests that whoever truly belongs to his progeny will have guidance and conduct that conform only to the Sharīʿa and the Ṭarīqa.”
Fluent Translation
Ibn al-Malak says: Holding fast to the Book means acting upon what it contains—that is, obeying God’s commands and avoiding His prohibitions. Holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny likewise means loving them and being guided by their way and conduct. Sayyid Jamal al-Din adds that this meaning applies provided that their guidance and conduct do not contradict the religion. I (Mulla Ali al-Qari) say: The unqualified wording of the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him, indicates that whoever is truly intended as belonging to the progeny will have guidance and conduct that accord only with the Sharia and the spiritual path.
A Point Concerning Meaning
The central expression in this passage is “being guided by their guidance and conduct.” Mulla Ali al-Qari does not limit holding fast to the progeny to loving and honoring them; rather, he includes being guided by their way and conduct within the meaning of this adherence.
The significance of this evidence for the author of ʿAbaqat al-Anwar is that it shows that interpreting adherence to the progeny in terms of guidance is not an interpretation exclusive to the Imamiyya or constructed on the basis of their doctrinal principles; rather, this meaning also appears in the words of an important Sunni commentator. This passage alone does not, of course, establish all the arguments concerning the imamate, but it provides noteworthy evidence against the view that holding fast to the Ahl al-Bayt can be reduced merely to love and respect.
8. Second Piece of Evidence: Abd al-Raʾuf al-Munawi (d. 1031 AH): Adherence, Exemplarity, and Holding Fast in Religion
ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī (d. 1031 AH) was a prominent Sunni hadith scholar and commentator of the eleventh Islamic century and a Shāfiʿī scholar. His most important work is Fayḍ al-Qadīr Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, which is considered one of the extensive and well-known hadith commentaries. On the question of the imamate and the infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt, he does not agree with the Imāmī position and explicitly states that the Ahl al-Bayt do not possess infallibility as the prophets do. Nevertheless, the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār draws on those portions of his statements that indicate the role of the Prophet’s progeny as guides and exemplars in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things.
In Fayḍ al-Qadīr, while commenting on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, al-Munāwī quotes al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī:
“Al-Ḥakīm said: He urged adherence to them because the matter is directly manifest to them, and they are thus further removed from tribulation. This is a general expression intended to refer to a particular group: those among them who are scholars and act upon their knowledge. The ignorant and the wicked are therefore excluded. They are human beings who have not been divested of human desires, nor have they been granted the infallibility of the prophets. Just as the Book of God contains both abrogating and abrogated passages, so that the ruling conveyed by an abrogated passage ceases to apply, likewise, those among them other than their righteous scholars cease to serve as exemplars…”
Fluent Translation
Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī says: The Prophet encouraged adherence to them because the matter of guidance is clearer to them and they are further removed from afflictions. Although this expression appears general, it refers to a particular group: the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt who act upon their knowledge. The ignorant and the wicked are therefore excluded from its meaning. They are human beings, are not free of human inclinations, and do not possess infallibility as the prophets do. Just as some rulings in the Book of God come to an end with the advent of an abrogating ruling, here too, following those among them who are not righteous scholars is set aside.
A Point Concerning the Passage’s Implications
The important point in this passage is that the concept of “exemplarity” (al-qudwa) remains present in al-Munāwī’s interpretation. Although he restricts what is meant by the Prophet’s progeny (ʿitra) to scholars who act upon their knowledge and holds a view on infallibility that differs from that of the Imāmiyya, he nevertheless preserves the progeny’s fundamental role in providing guidance and serving as exemplars. Thus, in this interpretation too, holding fast to the progeny is not confined merely to love or respect; rather, it is connected with their occupying the position of exemplars and guides to be followed.
The significance of this evidence for the argumentative method of the author of ʿAbaqāt al-anwār lies precisely here. He does not quote the statements of Sunni scholars selectively, omitting the portions that conflict with Imāmī doctrinal foundations; rather, he presents the text with its qualifications and limitations intact and draws upon the common ground it contains. Accordingly, the value of this quotation does not lie in al-Munāwī’s having accepted the infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt or all the foundations of the Imāmī doctrine of the imamate. Rather, its value lies in the fact that, even while acknowledging disagreement over infallibility, he continues to understand holding fast to the progeny in terms of guidance and following their example.
Elsewhere in Fayḍ al-qadīr, al-Munāwī writes concerning the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn):
“In this, together with his initial statement, ‘I am leaving among you,’ there is an intimation—indeed, an explicit declaration—that the two are like twins whom he left behind, and that he enjoined his community to treat them well, to give their due precedence over their own selves, and to hold fast to them in religion... Al-Ḥakīm said: What is meant by his progeny here is the scholars among them who act upon their knowledge, for they are the ones who do not part from the Qur’an.”
Fluent Translation
Al-Munāwī says: This statement, together with the Prophet’s initial expression, “I am leaving among you,” conveys an intimation approaching an explicit declaration that the Qur’an and the progeny have been left among the community like twins, and that the Prophet enjoined the community to treat both well, to give the due of both precedence over themselves, and to hold fast to both in religion. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī also stated that what is meant by the progeny here is the scholars among them who act upon their knowledge, for they are the ones who do not part from the Qur’an.
A Point Concerning the Text’s Implications
The decisive expression in this passage is the phrase “الاستمساك بهما في الدين” (“holding fast to both of them in religion”). Al-Munāwī explicitly places adherence to the Prophet’s progeny within the sphere of religion; thus, he is not speaking of a merely emotional or social relationship, but of adherence as a religious matter and a means of guidance.
Moreover, the expression “خلّفهما,” meaning “he left the two of them behind,” indicates that the discussion concerns the period after the Prophet. This expression alone, of course, does not signify political succession and should not be interpreted beyond what it can support; it does, however, indicate that al-Munāwī, too, understands the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things as concerning the situation of the community after the Prophet’s passing and the nature of its relationship with the Quran and the Prophet’s progeny.
In this respect, this passage from al-Munāwī’s discussion relates directly to the central point of the third argument: if the Prophet left the Quran and his progeny among the community and enjoined holding fast to both of them in religion, the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things cannot be regarded as separate from any discussion of religious authority after the Prophet without examining this role in providing guidance.
9. The Third Witness: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī (d. 1122 AH): “بعد وفاتي” (“After My Death”); “Will You Follow Both of Them?”
Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī (d. 1122 AH) was a Mālikī hadith scholar and commentator, and the author of Sharḥ al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya. He is counted among the prominent Sunni hadith scholars of the twelfth century AH. The author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār draws on his commentary on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, particularly a passage in which he explains the community’s relationship with the Quran and the Prophet’s progeny in the context of the period after the Prophet’s passing and in terms of “following” (اتباع).
Al-Zurqani writes in his commentary on the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (al-Thaqalayn):
“He emphasized and reinforced that injunction by saying: Consider, then, how you will act regarding the two after my death: will you follow them and thus please me, or will you fail to do so and thus distress me?”
Fluent Translation
And he emphasized and reinforced that injunction with these words: Consider, then, how you will act regarding the two after my death: will you follow them and please me, or will you fail to do so and distress me?
Interpretive Point
The important point in this passage lies in the two expressions “after my death” (بعد وفاتي) and “will you follow them?” (هل تتبعونهما). In explaining the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, al-Zurqani situates the matter in the period after the Prophet’s death and explains the injunction concerning the two weighty things in terms of “following.”
The significance of this evidence for the third aspect lies in the fact that a Sunni commentator reconstructs, in different terms, the very question central to the argument of the author of ʿAbaqāt: the position of the Quran and the Prophet’s progeny after him, and how the community should treat them. This statement alone does not establish all the foundations of the Imami theory of the imamate, but it is particularly significant in countering Dihlawi’s claim that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things has no connection whatsoever with the question of authority after the Prophet. It shows that some Sunni scholars, too, understood this hadith within the framework of “after the Prophet’s death” and “following the two weighty things.”
Of course, elsewhere in this same exposition, Zurqani, like some other commentators, restricts the meaning of the progeny to scholars who act upon their knowledge. The author of ʿAbaqāt does not disregard this qualification, since his aim is not to establish that every Sunni scholar accepted all the foundations of Imami doctrine, but to extract precisely what is sufficient to critique Dihlawi’s claim. Thus, disagreement over who constitutes the progeny or the limits of that designation does not preclude drawing upon this common ground: acknowledgment of the progeny’s role in providing guidance and serving as exemplars to be followed.
10. Fourth Witness: Husam al-Din Saharanpuri; Evidence from the Anti-Shiʿi Work Marāfiḍ al-Rawāfiḍ
Husam al-Din ibn Muhammad Bayazid Saharanpuri, author of Marāfiḍ al-Rawāfiḍ, is among the writers whose work was composed in a context of criticizing and refuting Shiʿi views. This very position gives his statement significance as evidence in argument: it comes from a scholar whose intellectual setting is not sympathetic to Imami foundations, yet who explicitly affirms the guiding dimension of adherence to the progeny when explaining its meaning.
In explaining the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, Saharanpuri writes:
“Adherence to the Book of God consists in acting in accordance with its rulings, while adherence to the progeny is an allusion to loving them, preserving their sanctity, and being guided by their guidance and way of life... Mulla ʿAli al-Qari has said: The unqualified wording used by His Holiness, may God bless him and grant him peace, intimates that the progeny, in the true sense, consists of those whose way of life does not contravene the Sharia.”
Fluent Translation
Holding fast to the Book of God means acting in accordance with its rulings, while holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny is an allusion to loving them, respecting their sanctity, and being guided by their path and way of life. Mulla Ali al-Qari has also stated that the unrestricted wording of the Prophet’s statement—may God bless him and grant him peace—indicates that a true member of the progeny is one whose conduct and way do not contravene the Sharia.
A Point Concerning the Implication
The most important part of this passage for the third interpretation is the expression “being guided by their guidance and way of life.” Saharanpuri, whose book was written in the context of criticism of Shiism, understands holding fast to the progeny as carrying a meaning of guidance, despite his fundamental disagreement with Imami doctrines, and does not limit it to love and respect for their sanctity.
This is precisely what gives this evidence its importance in the argumentative method of the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār. He does not use Saharanpuri’s statement to establish all Imami doctrines, since Saharanpuri neither accepts the infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt in the Imami sense nor accepts all the implications of the theory of the Imamate. What is used here is only a shared premise: that holding fast to the progeny in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things entails guidance and following.
In this respect, this evidence acquires even greater value, since it shows that understanding holding fast to the progeny as involving guidance is not merely an interpretation internal to the Imami school that can be dismissed without examination; rather, this implication is also found in the words of a scholar who was engaged in refuting Shiism.
11. Fifth Witness: Thanāʾ Allāh Pānīpatī (d. 1225 AH): Recourse to the “Prophet’s Deputy”
Qāḍī Thanāʾ Allāh Pānīpatī (d. 1225 AH) was a prominent Hanafi jurist, Qurʾanic exegete, and scholar in the Indian subcontinent, and the author of al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī. He is counted among the influential Naqshbandi scholars of India, and his works on Qurʾanic exegesis and the religious sciences are widely renowned. The author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār quotes a passage from the conclusion of his book Sayf-i Maslūl which, among the pieces of evidence for this interpretive aspect, is more explicit in linking the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to the question of authoritative guidance after the Prophet.
After presenting his view on establishing the imamate of the Twelve Imams through spiritual unveiling and inspiration, Pānīpatī explicitly states that the same meaning can also be inferred from the Book and hadith, and then cites the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things:
“… The wisdom in this is that the religious laws of earlier prophets were abrogated after their deaths, whereas this religious law is everlasting; thus, until the Day of Resurrection, the community must, after the Prophet’s passing, turn to the Prophet’s deputy. Therefore, out of compassion for his community, that master, peace be upon him, guided them toward love for his family and indicated that they should cling to their pure hem, for they are the Prophet’s heirs and the gateway to his knowledge. Hence he said, peace be upon him: ‘ترکت فیکم الثقلین: کتاب الله و عترتی’—‘I have left among you the two weighty things: the Book of God and my progeny…’”
Fluent Translation
Pānīpatī says: The wisdom of this is that the religious laws of earlier prophets were abrogated after their passing, whereas this religious law is everlasting and endures until the Day of Resurrection; therefore, after the Prophet’s passing, the community must always turn to the Prophet’s deputy. For this reason, out of compassion for his community, he guided them toward love for his family and indicated that they should cling to their pure hem, because they are the Prophet’s heirs and the gateways to his knowledge. It was for this reason that he said: “I have left among you two precious things: the Book of God and my progeny.”
A Point Concerning the Text’s Implications
Compared with the preceding evidence, this piece of evidence takes a more explicit step in the direction intended by the third line of argument. Pānīpatī analyzes the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things within the framework of the question of what follows the Prophet’s passing, linking the issue to “the community’s recourse to the Prophet’s deputy.” He also identifies the Prophet’s progeny as “the Prophet’s heirs” and “the gateway to his knowledge”—expressions that go beyond a merely emotional or historical relationship and indicate their role in providing guidance.
It is precisely in this respect that this passage is significant for the critique of Dihlawī’s position. Dihlawī counters the Imāmī argument by responding that merely being an object of adherence does not necessarily entail supreme leadership. Yet Pānīpatī, himself a Sunni scholar, interprets the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in a context concerned with the community’s need for an authority after the Prophet’s passing and its recourse to his deputy. Thus, given such expositions, the claim that the hadith is entirely unrelated to the question of authority after the Prophet requires an argument beyond a general rule concerning the meaning of adherence.
This evidence does not, of course, mean that Pānīpatī accepts all the foundations of Imāmī doctrine. In this passage, he does not establish all the implications of the Imāmī theory of the imamate, such as the infallibility and divine designation of the Imams. The value of his statement as evidence in argument is limited to his interpreting the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in connection with the guidance of the community after the Prophet and recourse to a religious authority.
Another important methodological point is that the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār does not rely on the portion of Pānīpatī’s statement concerning spiritual unveiling and inspiration as his principal evidence; he merely reports that portion. What he cites as evidence is Pānīpatī’s explicit statement that this same meaning can also be inferred from the Book and hadith, followed by his use of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things to explain the community’s need for guidance after the Prophet.
12. The Independent Dimension of the Third Line of Argument: From the Meaning of Adherence to Its Guiding Function
12–1. How the Third Argument Differs from the Two Preceding Arguments
In the first two arguments, the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār pursues two preliminary questions. The first argument addresses what “holding fast to the ʿitrah” means in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (ḥadīth al-thaqalayn). Drawing on statements by a number of Sunni scholars, it demonstrates that this expression involves concepts such as seeking guidance, taking as an exemplar, and following, rather than merely denoting love and respect. The second argument goes a step further and addresses the status of this following; that is, it demonstrates that, in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, following the ʿitrah is placed alongside following the Qur’an in terms of its obligatory and binding character.
The third argument, however, does not seek to repeat these two discussions. The new issue in this argument is neither the basic meaning of holding fast nor merely the obligation to follow; rather, it is the relationship between holding fast and the outcome that the Noble Prophet himself stated for it. In the statement “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“As long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me”), holding fast to the Qur’an and the ʿitrah occupies the position of the condition, while not going astray after the Prophet is presented as its consequence.
Thus, the distinct aspect of the third argument may be stated as follows: holding fast to the ʿitrah is situated within the framework of guidance that the Prophet outlined to safeguard the community against going astray after him. It is precisely this aspect that distinguishes this argument from the two preceding arguments.
12–2. The Conditional Structure of the Hadith: “إن تمسكتم بهما” (“If You Hold Fast to Them Both”) and “لن تضلوا” (“You Will Never Go Astray”)
The author of ʿAbaqāt bases his reasoning in this argument on attention to the structure of the hadith itself. In the expression “إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“If you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me”), the clause “إن تمسكتم بهما” (“If you hold fast to them both”) is the condition, and “لن تضلوا بعدي” (“You will never go astray after me”) is its consequence. According to this structure, the Noble Prophet presents holding fast to the Qur’an and the ʿitrah in relation to the realization of an outcome concerning guidance, namely, protection against going astray after him.
Of course, this conditional construction alone should not lead to the conclusion that no other path to guidance exists at any level, since such exclusivity cannot be inferred merely from the hadith’s conditional construction. Nevertheless, this much suffices for the claim advanced in the third line of argument: in this hadith, the ʿitrah, alongside the Qurʾan, is placed within a relationship of guidance, and holding fast to the two is linked to not going astray after the Prophet.
Accordingly, the author of ʿAbaqāt does not base his argument solely on the hadith’s conditional construction; rather, he brings together several contextual indicators: first, Dihlawī’s acceptance of the fundamental obligation to hold fast; second, the interpretation of holding fast as seeking guidance, following an example, and adhering firmly in the statements of Sunni commentators; and third, the explicit connection in the text of the hadith between this holding fast and not going astray after the Prophet. Thus, the third line of argument consists of these interconnected elements, rather than merely a lexical reading of the expression “holding fast.”
12–3. The Pronoun in “bihimā” (“to Both of Them”): The Unity of the Object of Holding Fast in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things
One noteworthy feature of the hadith’s construction is its use of the dual pronoun in the expression “bihimā” (“to both of them”). This pronoun refers to the two weighty things, namely the Qurʾan and the ʿitrah, and indicates that both are situated within the same relationship whose outcome the Prophet described as “you will never go astray after me” («لن تضلوا بعدي»).
Of course, this expression does not imply that the Qurʾan and the ʿitrah are equal in all attributes and characteristics; establishing such matters requires examining other aspects of the hadith. The implication intended here is more limited: one cannot regard one of the two weighty things as included within the hadith’s guidance-related construction while excluding the other from that same relationship without justification.
Therefore, within the scope of the third line of argument, the main point is that the ʿitrah, alongside the Qurʾan, is the object of the very same holding fast that the Prophet linked to not going astray after him.
12–4. The Qualification “After Me”: The Temporal Horizon of the Argument
The qualification “after me” is one of the most important elements of this line of argument, because it extends the implication of the hadith to the period after the Prophet. The hadith does not speak only about Muslims’ relationship with the Ahl al-Bayt during the Messenger of God’s lifetime; rather, it concerns the situation that arises for the community after his passing.
Accordingly, in this third line of argument, the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things draws attention to an issue concerning the period after the Prophet: to what must the community hold fast in order to remain protected from misguidance after the Prophet’s passing? The hadith’s answer is to hold fast to the Quran and the ʿitrah.
This very point reveals the connection between this line of argument and the question of religious authority after the Prophet. There may be disagreement over the scope of this authority, those in whom it is embodied, or its theological implications. Yet to deny any connection between the hadith and the question of guidance and leadership after the Prophet, one must explain how an authority to which holding fast is presented, in the text of the hadith, as a means of preventing misguidance after the Prophet could be divorced from any guiding role after him.
13. The Affirmative and Negative Dimensions of the Third Line of Argument
13–1. What This Line of Argument Establishes for the ʿItrah
The third argument, within the scope of its reasoning, establishes a guiding role for the ʿitrah after the Prophet. This conclusion rests on the structure of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things itself: the Prophet linked adherence to the Qurʾan and the ʿitrah with the outcome, “You will never go astray after me” («لن تضلوا بعدي»). That is, in the hadith’s account, adherence to these two weighty things is connected with safeguarding the community against going astray after the Prophet’s passing.
The evidence that the author of ʿAbaqāt al-anwār quotes from Sunni scholars reinforces this point. Although these scholars differ from Imami positions in identifying those who constitute the ʿitrah or on certain theological questions, in many instances they have explained adherence to the ʿitrah through concepts such as seeking guidance, following their example, taking them as exemplars, and holding fast to them in matters of religion. Al-Zurqani likewise expresses this meaning within the temporal horizon after the Prophet, using the phrase “following after his death,” while Panipati places the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things within the discussion of the community’s recourse to the Prophet’s deputy.
According to the argumentative logic of the author of ʿAbaqāt, these indications, taken together, suffice to demonstrate the necessary connection between the obligation to follow and the guiding role of the Ahl al-Bayt after the Prophet. For that which the Prophet identified, alongside the Qurʾan, as a means of preventing the community from going astray after him cannot remain merely an object of love and respect.
13–2. What Is Negated in Dihlawi’s Claim
Unlike some of the other arguments, the negative aspect of the third argument does not seek to compare the ʿitrah directly with the other caliphs or to examine all questions concerning the imamate. Rather, its central focus is a critique of Dihlawi’s formulation of the issue.
Dihlawi accepts the obligation of adherence, but seeks to prevent any conclusion concerning authority and leadership after the Prophet from being drawn from this obligation. The third argument responds that “that to which one adheres” in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is not a general, neutral designation; rather, it is situated within a specific structure: adherence to the Qurʾan and the ʿitrah is presented as the condition for not going astray after the Prophet. Moreover, Sunni commentators and scholars have also explained this adherence through concepts such as following, seeking guidance, and holding fast in matters of religion.
Therefore, what this argument establishes against Dihlawī is, at the very least, the incorrectness of the claim that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn) is “entirely unrelated” to the question of authoritative guidance after the Prophet. This conclusion, however, does not mean that all discussions of the imamate have been settled; for a detailed demonstration of matters such as infallibility, the continued existence of an identifiable representative of the ʿitrah, superiority in knowledge, or other attributes of the Imam requires examining the independent arguments that the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār presents subsequently.
This distinction both preserves the scholarly scope of the third argument and shows that the critique of Dihlawī at this stage addresses a specific claim: can a hadith that links adherence to the ʿitrah with not going astray after the Prophet be regarded as categorically devoid of any connection to the question of guidance and authority after the Prophet?
14. Supplementary Explanation in Nafaḥāt al-Azhār
In summarizing this same argument, Nafaḥāt al-Azhār adopts the heading “Following the Ahl al-Bayt Is Obligatory upon the Ummah” and offers a more concise formulation of its reasoning. According to this formulation, the purport of the phrase “ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا بعدي” (“As long as you hold fast to both of them, you will not go astray after me”) is that following the Ahl al-Bayt is obligatory, because the Prophet presented such following as the means of preventing the ummah from going astray after him.
This explanation does not offer an independent proof separate from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār; rather, it reflects more explicitly the same relationship between holding fast and not going astray that is present in the third argument. In other words, the central point of the reasoning remains the very structure of the hadith and the connection between holding fast to the Two Weighty Things and guidance after the Prophet. (Nafaḥāt al-Azhār, vol. 2, p. 250; PDF: 294.)
15. Conclusion
The third argument in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār should not be regarded as a repetition of the discussion of the obligation to follow in the two preceding arguments, for its distinctiveness lies in the particular structure of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn), namely the phrase, “As long as you hold fast to them both, you will never go astray after me.” In this construction, the Qur’an and the Prophet’s progeny are joined, through the dual pronoun, within a single relationship of holding fast; the outcome of this adherence is identified as “not going astray,” and the qualification “after me” extends this guiding function into the period after the Prophet.
The examination of this argument showed that the author of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār does not base his reasoning on a single contextual indicator, but brings together a set of elements: the internal structure of the hadith, Dihlawī’s acknowledgment of the principle that holding fast is obligatory, the numerous transmission routes of the hadith containing the term “holding fast” (tamassuk), and the interpretations of a number of Sunni scholars who explain holding fast to the Prophet’s progeny through concepts such as seeking guidance, following their example, taking them as exemplars, adhering firmly in matters of religion, and following them after the Prophet’s death.
The principal findings of this study may be summarized in the following points:
1. The independence of the third argument from the preceding arguments: The third argument neither seeks to establish the meaning of holding fast anew nor merely addresses the obligation to follow. Rather, its novel aspect is the examination of the function that the Prophet ascribed to this adherence: namely, the connection between holding fast to the Qur’an and the Prophet’s progeny and protection from going astray after the Prophet.
2. The argument’s focus on the structure of the hadith itself: The central basis of the author of ʿAbaqāt’s argument is the structure of the Prophet’s statement, rather than merely the statements of commentators. The condition “if you hold fast to them both,” the consequence “you will never go astray,” and the temporal qualification “after me” show that the hadith establishes a relationship of guidance between holding fast to the Two Weighty Things and the condition of the Muslim community after the Prophet.
3. The author of ʿAbaqāt’s method of argumentation in using the sources of his opponents: Examination of evidence such as the statements of al-Munāwī, al-Zurqānī, and al-Sahāranpūrī showed that, in advancing his argument, the author of ʿAbaqāt does not claim that these scholars accepted all the doctrinal foundations of the Imāmī school. Rather, he extracts from their statements precisely the common ground sufficient to challenge his opponent’s claim. Even when these scholars differ with the Imāmī school on issues such as infallibility or identifying those who constitute the Prophet’s progeny, their statements continue to acknowledge a role for the progeny in providing guidance and serving as exemplars.
4. The scholarly method in the critique of Dehlavi: The principal criticism advanced in the third argument concerns the fact that Dehlavi, by turning a particular case into a general rule, disregards the distinctive features of the structure of the Hadith al-Thaqalayn. The response of the author of ʿAbaqāt is that the discussion does not concern every “object of adherence” in an unrestricted sense, but rather a particular object of adherence that the Prophet, alongside the Qur’an, identified as a means of preventing misguidance after him.
5. The limited scope of the conclusion of the third argument and the avoidance of extending it beyond the evidentiary capacity of the proof: This argument alone does not establish all the detailed questions of the Imamate, such as infallibility, the continued existence of an individual embodying the ʿitra, superior knowledge, and the other characteristics of the Imam, since each of these questions is pursued in other independent arguments in ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār. What this argument establishes is the guiding status of the ʿitra after the Prophet and the refutation of the claim that the Hadith al-Thaqalayn is entirely unrelated to the question of religious authority.
6. The importance of the supporting testimony of Thanaʾ Allah Panipati: Among the supporting testimonies examined, Panipati’s statement offers the most explicit account of the connection between the Hadith al-Thaqalayn and the question of what follows the Prophet’s death, since he presents it within the framework of the community’s need to refer to the Prophet’s deputy. The value of this testimony, however, does not lie in its acceptance of all the doctrinal foundations of the Imamiyya, but in showing that the connection between the Hadith al-Thaqalayn and the guidance of the community after the Prophet cannot be excluded from the sphere of Islamic understanding.
Overall, this study concludes that ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Dehlavi’s claim that the Hadith al-Thaqalayn has no connection with the question of the Imamate and leadership is untenable in light of the hadith’s internal structure and the supporting testimonies quoted from Sunni sources. The third argument of ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār shows that the central issue in this hadith is not merely the existence of a command to adhere, but the guiding status of that to which adherence is commanded and its function in safeguarding the community against misguidance after the Prophet.
Sources and References:
1. Mir Hamid Husayn Hindi, ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār fī Imāmat al-Aʾimma al-Aṭhār, vol. 20, section on the Hadith al-Thaqalayn, third argument, pp. 33–37 (PDF: 44–48).
2. Nafaḥāt al-Azhār fī Khulāṣat ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār, vol. 2, section on the ways in which the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Thaqalayn) establishes its meaning, third aspect, p. 250 onward (PDF: 294–295).
3. Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ; the quotation used is taken from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
4. ʿAbd al-Raʾūf al-Munāwī, Fayḍ al-Qadīr Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr; the quotation used is taken from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
5. Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī, Sharḥ al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya; the quotation used is taken from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
6. Ḥusām al-Dīn al-Sahāranpūrī, Marāfiḍ al-Rawāfiḍ; the quotation used is taken from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār. 7. Thanāʾ Allāh al-Pānīpatī, Sayf Maslūl; the quotation used is taken from ʿAbaqāt al-Anwār.
