Ten arguments from within the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things (Hadith al-Thaqalayn) that oppose and refute the doctrine of occultation
First Argument:
The ʿitra (the Prophet’s family) are guides who remove misguidance—“So long as you hold fast to them, you will never go astray after me.” It is a rule of guidance that the guide must be present, not absent, among those whom he guides. One who has been absent for twelve centuries has guided neither near nor far, as evidenced by the disagreements and mutual accusations of misguidance among his adherents in both fundamentals and branches. Supporting our argument—drawn from within Imami heritage itself—that the report of the Two Weighty Things negates occultation and stands against it, is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family):
“I am the warner—and in every age there is an Imam from us who guides them to what the Prophet of God brought” (Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī 2/204).
Thus it is established that one who is absent does not guide the people of his time nor remove misguidance; this contradicts the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things. Do you not see that the Qur’an had, with respect to guidance, the same ruling as the ʿitra, yet it was never absent or removed from the community? Had it been so, guidance would have been removed with it. Therefore, occultation stands in opposition to guidance within the accountable community and renders holding fast impossible.
Second Argument:
The inseparability and non-separation—“They will never separate until they return to me at the Pond”—is explicit regarding the inseparability of the Qur’an and the ʿitra. This inseparability is not merely theoretical or spiritual; rather, it is existential. If the Qur’an is present among the community, the ʿitra must likewise be present. The absence of either entails separation, which contradicts the explicit wording of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things concerning inseparability and non-separation. This existential inseparability pertains to the accountable believers: the Qur’an’s existential presence for them means they can return to it, consult its discourse and legislation itself. Likewise, the existential meaning of the ʿitra is the believers’ ability to return to them, question them, and know their positions. Otherwise, there would be an existential separation with respect to the accountable believers.
We emphasize “the accountable” because the entire report commands them to hold fast and informs them of the inseparability of what is to be held fast to (the Qur’an and the ʿitra) in order to guarantee the ability to hold fast. Thus one cannot say that occultation does not mean non-existence, because existence here is existence whose inseparable rulings return to the accountable believers. Do you not see that angels have existence, yet that existence entails no ruling obligating believers to follow angels within the law? Likewise with what is said about the existence of al-Khiḍr or the raising of Jesus (peace be upon them): even if they have temporal existence today, they lack the inseparability-based rulings with the Qur’an that return to the believers in guidance. Therefore, their existential status during absence cannot be the existential ruling of the ʿitra in this community. Why? Because the Wise Lawgiver and the Trustworthy Prophet did not establish guidance-obligations between Jesus or al-Khiḍr and this community, nor did they establish a binding companionship with the Qur’an that would generate a duty upon the believers enabling them to hold fast, in every age, to the Qur’an and the ʿitra. Rather, the Law guaranteed to the accountable community—within the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things—that existential continuity returning to the community would be present without absence, so they could fulfill the command to hold fast.
Accordingly, it is neither permissible nor correct to ascribe to God a “wisdom” in an existential concealment whose ruling—given contemporaneity—would require non-absence from the community, on the pretext that there are cases where existence accompanies absence from the community. The Hadith of the Two Weighty Things does not speak of abstract, absolute existential rulings to justify such an analogy; it speaks of an existential ruling that reveals a present, lived inseparability between the community and the ʿitra so that holding fast and guidance are possible—exactly as with the Qur’an’s existential ruling. The Qur’an is not like books or scrolls that exist with angels, such that one could claim mere existence with absence suffices to realize inseparability and the meaning of holding fast.
We further substantiate our point—again from within Imami heritage—that the existential ruling of the ʿitra as guides cannot be compared to mere existence with absence for those who have no divinely imposed guidance-duty toward the community, nor a reciprocal duty from the community toward them, such as Jesus and al-Khiḍr (peace be upon them). Imam al-Riḍā ʿAlī ibn Mūsā (peace be upon them) said:
“It is not permissible, in the wisdom of the Wise, to leave creation without what He knows they cannot do without and by which they subsist—by which they fight their enemy, distribute their spoils, establish their Friday and congregational prayers, and prevent the oppressor from the oppressed. Among this is that if He did not appoint for them a guardian Imam—trustworthy, preserving, entrusted—the religion would be effaced, faith would vanish, the sunnahs and rulings would be altered, innovators would add to it, heretics would subtract from it, and confusion would be cast upon the Muslims… Had He not appointed for them a guardian preserving what the Messenger brought, they would have corrupted as we have explained, and the laws, sunnahs, rulings, and faith would have been altered—entailing corruption of all creation” (ʿUyūn Akhbār al-Riḍā 1/08).
Thus, whoever claims that the ʿitra’s occultation for twelve centuries is a divine wisdom neither follows al-Riḍā nor understands the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things in its existential, contemporaneous inseparability with the community. Such a claim is merely sectarian. We cite Imami reports here as an argument against them from within their own sources: inseparability and non-separation between the ʿitra and the Qur’an is an existential inseparability whose ruling returns to the community so that they can fulfill the duty of holding fast. Consider how Shaykh al-Ṣadūq narrates with his chain from Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him):
“The earth does not remain for a single day without an Imam from us to whom the community can turn in distress” (Kamāl al-Dīn, p. 203).
This alerts the researcher to our argument from the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things: the existential ruling is not comparable to existence with absence; rather, it requires contemporaneous, lived presence among the people, enabling recourse to the ʿitra, clarification, and the removal of doubts.
Likewise, al-Kulaynī narrates with his chain from al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him):
“The earth is never without an Imam; if the believers add something, he returns them from it, and if they fall short, he completes it for them” (Uṣūl al-Kāfī 1/178).
The researcher must not be emotional. This is Imami heritage that contradicts Imami thought. The weakest researcher overturns the issue by asking, “So where is the Imam present in every age—otherwise we must believe in occultation?” This is weakness. The Imamate of the ʿitra has a meaning different from the Imami concept that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things—and even Imami heritage itself—undermines. A responsible researcher returns to the root of the issue and asks: which Imamate has occultation as one of its pillars, and what kind of occultation—one lasting twelve centuries?
Subsequent research steps will resolve the objections: Shiʿism is not identical with Imami doctrine, and the claim of following the ʿitra is not exclusive to the Imamis. Moreover, the Qur’an itself—alongside what has preceded—requires existential inseparability with a contemporaneous, lived ruling rather than absence, as in God’s saying:
“So ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know. (16:43)”
The address is to the community in every age, and those responsible are the ʿitra by the consensus of Zaydis and Imamis. There can be no turning to the ʿitra, no completion of deficiencies or correction of excesses by them, and no possibility for the community to hold fast to the ʿitra to realize their guidance, on the basis of a claim of existence with occultation. Hence it is established that the inseparability and non-separation of the ʿitra and the Qur’an is an existential ruling between them within the midst of the community: neither the Qur’an nor the ʿitra is absent from the community.
Third Argument:
His saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), “among you” ( fīkum ), indicates presence and actual existence. The phrase “Indeed, I am leaving among you” clearly points to the fact that what is being left—the Qur’an and the ʿitra—must be existent and present among those being addressed, namely the community. It is not valid for him (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to say “leaving among you” about something that is absent from you or not accessible to you in itself. Thus, this wording in the report conveys both material and meaningful presence within the community.
Fourth Argument:
Holding fast (al-tamassuk) in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things necessitates that the ʿitra be present, so that it can truly be said that holding fast has occurred to the ʿitra themselves.
Fifth Argument:
The continuity of guidance for the community, as stated in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things, requires the continuity of its source. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) promised the absence of misguidance “ever,” which indicates the continuity of guidance. Continuity of guidance necessitates continuity of its source. The Qur’an and the ʿitra are the sources of guidance in the report; therefore, these sources must be accessible, present, and not absent from the community in order for guidance to remain continuous. Otherwise, continuity would be severed and people would resort to the guidance of jurists and religious authorities who themselves admit that they operate on conjecture and do not possess certain knowledge of the actual rulings. The guidance the community receives from jurists and authorities does not represent continuous guidance, because it lacks certainty that it is guidance in the first place, or that it rests upon a position accepted by the one who errs—evidenced by their declaring one another misguided and by reliance on obscure and problematic hadith sources, to the point that some have refrained from issuing legal opinions, unsure where the jurisprudence and sayings of the ʿitra are so as to guide others to them. Without the realization of continuous guidance from the ʿitra for the community—carried out by the ʿitra as the Qur’an carries it out while present—the prophetic report itself would have to be rejected.
Sixth Argument:
The report of the “All-Subtle, All-Aware” negates occultation. His saying (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), “Indeed, the All-Subtle, the All-Aware informed me that the two will never separate,” indicates divine knowledge and profound wisdom in this inseparability. The All-Subtle, the All-Aware—exalted is He—knows the community’s need for guidance, and His informing of their non-separation (the Book and the ʿitra) is an affirmation that He willed them to remain together, present to the community continuously, to realize this wisdom and that objective. Had one of them been absent from the community, this informing would not signify permanent guidance. The statement of Imam al-Riḍā (peace be upon him) cited earlier applies here.
Seventh Argument:
The mention of the Pond (al-ḥawḍ) is evidence of continuity of existence. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: “until they come to me at the Pond.” This expression indicates the continuous existence of both—the Qur’an and the ʿitra—together from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) until the Day of Resurrection. Just as the Noble Qur’an exists in every age, so too must the ʿitra exist in every age, for their separation before the Pond would contradict the explicit wording of the hadith. It cannot be said that they are now—during occultation—inseparable yet unseen, because, as has already been explained, the existential ruling pertains to the condition of the community and what they perceive of the two and what returns to them from both. Thus, inseparability and non-separation until the Pond must not be absent from the community nor from the form of existence by which the accountable believers can point to them as present and not absent.
Eighth Argument:
The linkage to the Noble Qur’an—the continuous source of guidance—one of the Two Weighty Things, which is present among the community in every age. If the hadith pairs the ʿitra with the Qur’an in guidance and in non-separation, then it is logically necessary that the ʿitra be present like the presence of the Qur’an, in order to guarantee the continuity of the guidance brought by the Qur’an.
Ninth Argument:
The ʿitra are the living authority for guidance. If the Qur’an is the community’s scriptural reference, then the ʿitra represent the living authority that interprets the Qur’an, applies it, and clarifies what is problematic within it. The absence of this living authority means depriving the community of correct understanding and guiding leadership—this contradicts the very purpose of leaving the Two Weighty Things within the community. From within Imami heritage itself, indicating this presence that removes absence from the ʿitra within the community and establishes this argument, is what Shaykh al-Ṣadūq narrates with his chain: Imam al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) was asked:
“Can the earth be without a living, manifest scholar from among you to whom people turn in matters of lawful and unlawful?” He replied: “O Abu Yusuf! No” (ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ 1/195).
This is an explicit affirmation of manifestation (ẓuhūr), realizing what we assert regarding the existential ruling whose requirement is manifestation and close association with the community, and which in no way coheres with occultation. It confirms manifestation as proof of the ʿitra being a living authority among the community—present, not absent.
This is further affirmed by what Shaykh al-Mufīd narrates with his chain: Abu ʿAbd Allāh (peace be upon him) said, “Whoever dies without having a living, manifest Imam dies a death of ignorance” (al-Ikhtiṣāṣ, p. 269). And Imam al-Bāqir (peace be upon him) said—as narrated by al-Kulaynī with his chain:
“By God, O Muḥammad, whoever among this community wakes up without having a manifest, just Imam from God—exalted and mighty—wakes up astray and lost; and if he dies in this state, he dies the death of disbelief and hypocrisy” (Uṣūl al-Kāfī 1/184).
Yes, the researcher must bear the responsibility of rigorous inquiry. So long as one remains captive to the Imami theory of Imamate—with its notions of designation, texts, infallibility, and the like—which lead to occultation, then once occultation is invalidated, the entire Imami theory of Imamate collapses. One must then re-examine the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things from another, realistic and scholarly perspective, by which one can point to the Qur’an and the ʿitra as present within the community, not absent. Otherwise, one would be required to point to a designated, infallible Qur’an and ʿitra that are present and not absent—approaching them, asking them, receiving clarification and guidance from them directly. Anything short of this is negligence.
Tenth Argument:
Protecting the community from misguidance requires a present leadership. The supreme objective, ultimate aim, and major purport of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things is: “You will never go astray after me.” Protecting the community from misguidance cannot be realized through an absent ʿitra, or one to which the community cannot point or gain access regarding its affairs and crises. Misguidance may occur at any time, and the need for a rescuer and guide from misguidance necessitates the presence of a leadership from the ʿitra that is present and living among the community—to correct the course, rectify understanding, and preserve the religion.
Conclusion:
From these arguments, it becomes abundantly clear that the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things affirms the necessity of the ʿitra’s presence and existence among the community in every age and time, in order to ensure the realization of guidance and the absence of misguidance promised by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and to enable the community to fulfill its obligation—namely, holding fast to them. The Imamis focused solely on the aspect of individual infallibility within the report concerning the ʿitra. Infallibility may have a meaning directed to the consensus of the ʿitra; there is no objection to the Imami interpretation as a possible meaning of the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things if there were definitive proof that restricts and specifies the ʿitra by names and numbers—and where is that in relation to the hadith of the twelve?
Moreover, even if the Imami position entailed a continuous line of Imams without occultation, occultation itself demolishes the Imami theorization of individual infallibility for each member of the ʿitra, corrupts their entire theory regarding the community, and invalidates it. None take refuge behind claims of “divine wisdom” except one who is compelled thereby to reject the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things and to sing his own distant theorizing, departing unjustly from the centrality of the ʿitra as guides within the community. He would then be forced to impugn the Qur’an and the Sunnah and their meanings, and even to leap over binding Imami heritage itself—thus becoming his own imam, with neither reason, nor Book, nor ʿitra to correct his claims about the ʿitra.
The same applies to one who hides behind following religious authorities during the time of occultation: these authorities misled them and distanced them from knowing what truly constitutes the sayings of the ʿitra, due to contradictions within their transmitted heritage from the ʿitra—some of which you have already seen. Let every observer consider to whom he will present himself on the Day of Resurrection: presenting with al-Ṣadūq, al-Mufīd, al-Ṭūsī, al-Majlisī, and today’s authorities does not entail that one will be presenting with al-Ṣādiq, al-Bāqir, and al-Kāẓim (peace be upon them)! No responsible researcher can critique others—whether Zaydis or otherwise—unless the infallible members of the ʿitra are present, not absent, and accessible to him, removing his misguidance; otherwise, his refutation of others is mere self-consolation. Refuting what others hold does not remedy the Imami methodological flaw. And how much more so if the refutation of Zaydis or others is itself rooted in an Imami sectarian premise—were the conscientious, scrupulous researcher to abandon his Imami presuppositions, he would no longer refute the other, but would find that the truth lies with them.
May God grant you success.
O God, send blessings and peace upon Muḥammad and upon the family of Muḥammad
Translation of Ustadh Kadhim Al Zaydi (May Allah reward him)