The author is Sibt ibn al Jawzi (d. 654 A.H).
The narration of Thaqalayn is narrated through two asanid in the book Tadhkirat al Khawas of Sibt ibn al Jawzi. We will comment on each one of the two asanid after quoting them. Prior to quoting them, we wish to inform the readers that the book Tadhkirat al Khawas is definitely from the writings of Sibt ibn al Jawzi. His agnomen is Abu al Muzaffar, and his name is Yusuf ibn Qizughli. He is the grandson of the famous ‘Allamah Ibn al Jawzi (the son of his daughter), and he is an extremist Shia. This book of his was also written in support of his Shia beliefs. After presenting this background, we present his two asanid verbatim:
قال احمد فى الفضائل حدثنا اسود بن عامر حدثنا اسرائيل عن عثمان بن مغيرة عن على بن ربيعة قال لقيت زيد بن ارقم فقلت له هل سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول تركت فيكم الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر قال نعم سمعته يقول تركت فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله عز و جل حبل ممدود بين السماء و الارض وعترتى اهل بيتى الا انهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض فانظرو كيف تخلفونى فيهما
Ahmed states in al Fada’il: Aswad ibn ‘Amir — Isra’il — ‘Uthman ibn Mughirah — ‘Ali ibn Rabi’ah who said:
I met Zaid ibn Arqam and asked him, “Did you hear Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘I am leaving amongst you al Thaqalayn, the one is greater than the other?’” He replied, “Yes, I heard him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘I am leaving amongst you al Thaqalayn, the Book of Allah—which is a rope that has been extended from the sky to the earth and my ‘itrah, who are my Ahlul Bayt. They will never separate until they meet me at the pond. Be wary of how you succeed me regarding them.’”
Sibt ibn al Jawzi added on to this narration from his own side. Imam Ahmed narrates a shorter version which is as follows:
عن على بن ربيعة قال لقيت زيد بن ارقم وهو داخل على المختار او خارج من عنده فقلت له ا سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر قال نعم
‘Ali ibn Rabi’ah narrates: I met Zaid ibn Arqam, as he was entering or leaving the gathering of al Mukhtar so I asked him, “Did you hear Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, ‘I am leaving amongst you al Thaqalayn, the one is greater than the other.’” He replied, “Yes.”
We searched for this narration in the fourth volume of Musnad Ahmed (under the chapter of the narrations of Zaid ibn Arqam). We found that this narration ends at the reply of Zaid radiya Llahu ‘anhu “Yes”. There is no explanation of what Thaqalayn refers to. Sibt extended the narration in Tadhkirat al Khawas and added this extension from his own side, as is the noble habit of our ‘friends’. We have already explained the meaning of the unexplained narration under the narrations of Musnad Ahmed.
The readers are aware that the author of Yanabi’ al Mawaddah is staunch defendant of the Shia creed. He dedicated a chapter of his book to the narration of Thaqalayn. In it he mentioned the narration from Ziyadat Musnad Ahmed without the addition found in that of Sibt ibn al Jawzi. Thus our argument is supported by a devout Shia as well.
Furthermore, if we accept that this narration is sahih, then too it does not state the incumbency of following and obeying the Ahlul Bayt, thus failing to prove the claim of the opposition. The narration can only be used by them to establish an unclear directive regarding the Ahlul Bayt, which they will misinterpret to suit their fancies. This is not regarded as clear proof.
اخبرنا عبد الوهاب الانماطى عن محمد المظفر عن محمد العتيقى عن يوسف بن الدخيل جعفر العقيلى عن احمد الحلوانى عن عبدالله بن داهر حدثنا عبد الله بن عبد القدوس عن الاعمش عن عطية عن ابى سعيد عن النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم قال تركت فيكم الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله و عترتى اههل بيتى
‘Abdul Wahhab al Anmati — Muhammad al Muzaffar — Muhammad al ‘Atiqi — Yusuf ibn al Dakhil Jafar al al ‘Aqili — Ahmed al Hulwani — ‘Abdullah ibn Dahir — ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul Quddus — al A’mash — ‘Attiyah — Abu Sa’id — that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
Now look at this isnad. It has a few disparaged narrators and abounds with Shia narrators. We will suffice upon discussing four of these narrators. The readers can then justly decide whether or not the narration is acceptable. There is no need for more discussion.
1. Al Dhahabi states:
محمد بن المظفر…قال الباجى فيه تشيع ظاهر
Muhammad ibn al Muzaffar: Al Baji said, “His Shi’ism is apparent.”
2. Ibn Hajar also stated:
محمد بن المظفر…ان ابا الوليد الباجى قال فيه تشيع ظاهر
Muhammad ibn al Muzaffar: Abu al Walid al Baji said, “His Shi’ism is apparent.”
Back to top
The second individual is ‘Abdullah ibn Dahir. His details will also be presented from Lisan al Mizan of Ibn Hajar and Mizan of al Dhahabi.
عبد الله بن داهر الرازى ابو سليمان…قال احمد و يحيى ليس بشيئ قال و ما يكتب حديثه انسان فيه خير و قال العقيلى رافضى خبيث…قال ابن عدى عامة ما يرويه فى فضائل على وهو متهم فى ذلك
‘Abdullah ibn Dahir al Razi Abu Sulaiman: Ahmed and Yahya said, “He is a non-entity,” and they also said, “No person with good in him will write any of his ahadith.” Al ‘Uqayli said, “He was a despicable Rafidi.” Ibn ‘Adi said, “The majority of his narrations are regarding the virtues of ‘Ali, regarding which he is suspected (of dishonesty).”
Back to top
He is the third criticised narrator of this isnad. His details are as follows:
1. Al Dhahabi states in Mizan al I’tidal:
عبد الله بن عبد القدوس الكوفى رافضى…قال يحيى ليس بشيئ رافضى خبيث…قال الدالرقطنى ضعيف
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul Quddus al Kufi: A Rafidi… Yahya said, “He is a non-entity and he is a despicable Rafidi.” Al Daraqutni said, “He is da’if.”
2. Ibn Hajar states in Taqrib al Tahdhib:
عبد الله بن عبد القدوس السعدى الكوفى…رمى بالرفض و كان ايضا يخطئ
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul Quddus al Sa’di al Kufi: He was criticised of being a Rafidi and he would also commit many errors.
3. In Tahdhib al Tahdhib:
عبد الله بن عبد القدوس التميمى السعدى الكوفى ابو محمد قال ابن معين ليس بشيئ رافضى خبيث…قال محمد بن مهران الحمال لم يكن بشيئ…قال ابو داود ضعيف الحديث كان يرمى بالرفض
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul Quddus al Tamimi al Sa’di al Kufi Abu Muhammad: Ibn Ma’in said, “He is a non-entity and he is a despicable Rafidi.” Muhammad ibn Mahran al Hammal said, “He is a non-entity.” Abu Dawood said, “His narrations are da’if and he was criticised of being a Rafidi.
Back to top
He is the fourth narrator. We have mentioned his details on numerous occasions. Refer to it under the narration of Tabaqat ibn Sa’d. He narrates narrations of this sort from his teacher, Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib al Kalbi, and thereafter gives him the name Abu Sa’id al Khudri. This is clear deception.
Note:- Sibt ibn al Jawzi criticised his grandfather Abu al Faraj ibn al Jawzi, but this ‘saint’ does not know the reality of his own research, i.e. to what extent is it accurate. He stated, “Abu Dawood narrated the hadith of Thaqalayn in his Sunan.” Whereas the reality is that the narration of Thaqalayn is not in Abu Dawood. We advise the Shia to come to the rescue of their fellow Shia and prove that this narration is in fact found in Sunan Abi Dawood.
We now present a brief biography of Sibt ibn al Jawzi at the end of this discussion.
Note:- Some parts of this book, Mir’at al Zaman have been published by Da’irat al Ma’arif of Hyderabad, Dakkan.
ومن شرط الامام ان يكون معصوما لئلا يقع فى الخطئ
He believes that Imam al Mahdi is alive at this moment and is the final Imam.
In short, he is afflicted by Shia ideologies, thus his narrations and writings are no proof against us. We have no reliance upon him. He is capable of fabricating a sahih isnad and spreading it. Therefore his views should be scrutinised before accepting them. Thereafter, if he mentions anything against the view of the majority of the ‘ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah, then it should be rejected.
Note:- The scholars are being informed that many narrations of this Sibt ibn al Jawzi are found in our books. Those ‘ulamaʼ who were not aware of his stance added his narrations to their books. That is why a narration appears from Sibt ibn al Jawzi in the book Sirat al Halabiyyah (vol. 3 pg. 440). The purpose of this narration is to condemn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It states that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote an agreement between him and Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding the land of Fadak. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu then snatched it from her and tore it up. The Shia present this narration to condemn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu at debates, claiming that it is from our sources. The reality is in fact quite different. This narration is a product of their own people, so there is no question that can be raised against us. This is clear deception on their part. The people of knowledge should be aware of their trickery and should not accept these baseless narrations without researching them.
 Tadhkirat al Khawas pg. 332 the twelfth chapter.
 Tadhkirat al Khawas pg. 332 Chapter Twelve
 Mizan al I’tidal vol. 3 pg. 138
 Lisan al Mizan vol. 5 pg. 83
 Lisan al Mizan vol. 3 pg.282 and Mizan al I’tidal vol. 2 pg.35
 Mizan al I’tidal of al Dhahabi vol. 2 pg. 54-55.
 Taqrib al Tahdhib pg. 275-276
 Tahdhib al Tahdhib vol. 5 pg. 302
 Tarikh Ibn Khallikan vol. 2 pg. 25, al Fawa’id al Bahiyyah pg. 96 and al Jawahir al Mudiyyah vol. 2 pg. 230.
 Mir’at al Jinan of Yafi’i vol. 4 pg. 136, al Jawahir al Mudiyyah vol. 2 pg. 231 and Kashf al Zunun vol. 3 pg. 164.
 Tadhkirat al Khawas pg. 380
 Tadhkirat al Khawas pg. 377Back to top