Refutating Wahabis-Hadith on intercession Tawassul


Refutating Wahabis-Hadith on intercession Tawassul of Umar (ra) from Abbas r.a

[pseudo salafis] The arabic of the hadith of Abbas bin Abdul Mutlib(Radhi’Allah Anho) is this:كان إذا قحطوا استسقى ‏ ‏بالعباس بن عبد المطلب ‏ ‏فقال اللهم ‏ ‏إنا كنانتوسلإليك بنبينا]فتسقينا وإنانتوسلإليك بعم نبينا فاسقنا قال فيسقون

,
And correct translation is this:O Allah! We would use our Prophet(Peace Be Upon Him)as a means(Waseela) to Youand You then sent us rain; now we use our Prophet’s uncleas a means(Waseela)to You.
,
mashallah, this Haditheven further proves that Waseela from alive people(awliyas)is also allowed. For Example,If a person says that I love coffee then it does not mean that he is saying that I hate tea.Similarly, Hazrat Umar’s asking through Hazrat Abbasdoes not prove that Waseela of Prophet Mohammad(Peace Be Upon Him) is prohibited.nor does it says that any where
,
but let me answer you fromclassical imamsnow , andhow ibn Abbas (ra) asked Allah

How did Ibn abbas (Ra) prayed himself , lets see
,

He (Ra) prayed in these words to Allah
,,
اللهم إنه لم ينزل بلاء إلا بذنب , ولم يكشف إلا بتوبة , وقد توجه القوم بي إليك لمكاني من نبيك
.

O Allah,calamity (and trouble) comes as a result of sin and only penitence lifts this calamity, and the people,because of my relation with Your Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), have offered me to Youas a means of seeking Your help, and these hands of ours, besmeared in sins, are before You and our foreheads are bowed down with penitence. So give us rain
,
►Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī narrated it in Fath-ul-bārī (2:497)
,
► Subkī, Shifā’-us-siqām fī ziyārat khayr-il-anām (p.128)
,
►Qastallānī, al-Mawāhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:277)
,
►Zurqānī in his Commentary (11:152)
,
Allah o Akbar, Even Ibn Abbas (Rah) prayed sayingon account of my relation with Your Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), have offered me to You, This proves Tawassul through Ahle bait and Awliyas (Rah) are alive ,

Why Al Abbas (Ra) was asked to do Dua, By Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Rah)
إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يرى للعباس ما يرى الولد للوالد , فاقتدوا أيها الناس برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في عمه العباس واتخذوه وسيلة إلى الله
,
Rasul Ullah(salallaho alaihi wasalam) used to take Al-Abbas(RA)like a son takes his father. O People You should also follow the Prophet (saw)incase of Al-Abbas(RA) and make him an Intercessor to Allah.
,
[Fath al Bari 2:497]
,
So this was order of Prophet (Salehalawaalihi wasalam) to do it , no where it saysgoing to Prophet’s (Salehalawaalihi wasalam) grave is haram or shirkso they can’t ask him
,
Reply you fromimam Hajar (rah) again
,

Ibn Hajar `Asqalaniwrites more about this Tawasul of Ibn e Abbas (ra)

“The episode involving `Abbâs makes it clear that to seek intercession from the virtuous, the pious and members of the Prophet’s family is a desirable act.In addition, this event proves the high status of `Abbâs as well as reveals `Umar’s respect for him and the acknowledgement of his status.”

►Ibn Hajar `Asqalânî, Fath-ul-bârî, 2:497;

►Zurqânî, Sharh-ul-Mawâhib, 11:152
,
Allah o akbar, Where didany imam (rah) said its shirkso Sahabi (ra) didn’t do it, They all missed such a big issue

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
Imam Suyuti (rah) on the
hadithrefuting wahabi claim
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
,

“In the year 17 `Umar enlarged the Prophetic mosque. That year there was a drought in the Hijaz. It was named the Year of Cinders (`am al-ramada). `Umar prayed for rain for the people by means of al-`Abbas. Ibn Sa`d narrated from [the Sahabi] Niyar al-Aslami that when`Umar came came out to pray for rain, he came out wearing the cloaks (burd) of the Messenger of Allah, upon him blessings and peace.
,
Al-Suyuti mentions the context of this event in his Tarikh al-Khulafa’ (Beirut, 1992 Ahmad Fares ed. p. 140):]
,
^^^^
Intercession through this cloak , Even Hadrat Umar (Ra) was wearing Prophet’s (salehalawaalihi wasalam) cloak at the time, , Now what is importance of the cloak , lets see ,

^^^^
Intercession through this cloak
,

…Here is the cloak of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). and she brought out to me that cloak made of Persian cloth with a hem of brocade, and its sleeves bordered with brocade and said: This wall Allah’s Messenger’s cloak with ‘A’isha until she died, and when she died. I got possession of it.The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to wear that, and we washed it for the sick and sought cure thereby.

Sahih Muslim Book 024, Number 5149:

So this hadith proves that Awliyas [rah] who are alive can be used for Wasila, and even Hadrat Ibn Abbas [ra] asked Allah through wasila . No where hadith says Sahabas [ra] asked because Prophet [salehalawaalihi wasalam ] died.

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Now Refutation of his misquotation on tawassul

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
HADITH NUMBER 1: Of Hadrat Aisha [ra] and wasila
“ALLAH’S GENEROSITY TO HIS PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATH”
‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو النعمان ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏سعيد بن زيد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عمرو بن مالك النكري ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو الجوزاء أوس بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏قحط ‏ ‏أهل ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏قحطا ‏ ‏شديدا فشكوا إلى ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فقالت انظروا قبر النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاجعلوا منه ‏ ‏كوى ‏ ‏إلى السماء حتى لا يكون بينه وبين السماء سقف قال ففعلوا فمطرنا مطرا حتى نبت العشب وسمنت الإبل حتى ‏ ‏تفتقت ‏ ‏من الشحم فسمي عام ‏ ‏الفتق
Imam Dārimī relates from Abū al-Jawzā’ Aws bin ‘Abdullāh:
The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ‘Ā’ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophet’s grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave. The narrator says they did so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camels had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to the over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.
Dārimī related it in his Sunan (1:43#93); Ibn-ul-Jawzī in al-Wafā’ bi-ahwāl-il-mustafā (2:801); Subkī in Shifā’-us-siqām fī ziyārat khayr-il-anām (p.128); Qastallānī in al-Mawāhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276); and Zurqānī in his Commentary (11:150).
Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī says: “This tradition has a good chain of transmission; rather, in my opinion, it is sound. The scholars have also acknowledged its soundness and have established its genuineness on the basis of almost equally credible evidence.
A reply to the “Salafi” Objectors
I will include two refutations to the “salafi” objectors regarding the authenticity of this hadith.The first refutation enclosed was found in this article on the subject of TAWASSUL :
Al-Darimi in the Chapter 15 of the Muqaddima (Introduction) to his Sunan (1:43) entitled: “Allah’s generosity to His Prophet after his death,” relates from Aws ibn `Abd Allah with a good chain:
“The people of Madina complained to `A’isha of the severe drought that they were suffering. She said: “Go to the Prophet’s grave and open a window towards the sky so that there will be no roof between him and the sky.” They did so, after which they were watered with such rain that vegetation grew and the camels got fat. That year was named the Year of Plenty.”
It is clear from the above narrations that the position of the Mother of the Believers `A’isha differs from that of modern-day “Salafis,” since she recommended to the people of Madina to use the Prophet in his grave as a means of obtaining blessing and benefit and this remained in use until the Wahhabis took over the Hijaz, while “Salafis” declare this to be unacceptable. Either they know better than the fuqaha’ of the Companions or, most certainly, they are peddling misguidance and innovation.
Shaykh Albani, in order to reject the hadith of Darimi, raised some objections which are so full of holes that one can not only see the sky through them, but also the sun, the moon, and the stars. He said in his little book translated under the name Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings (p. 130-131) about Darimi’s chain of transmission for the report (Abu al-Nu`man from Sa`id ibn Zayd from `Amr ibn Malik al-Nukri from Abu al-Jawza’ Aws ibn `Abd Allah from `A’isha):
This chain of narration is weak and cannot be used as a proof due to three reasons:
(i) Sa`id ibn Zayd who is the brother of Hammad ibn Zayd is somewhat weak. al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] said about him in al-Taqrib: “Generally acceptable, but he makes mistakes.” Dhahabi said about him in al-Mizan: “Yahya ibn Sa`id said: Weak, and al-Sa`di said: He is not a proof, they declare his ahadith to be weak. Nasa’i and others said: He is not strong; and Ahmad said: He is all right. Yahya ibn Sa`id would not accept him.”
However, the above documentation is partial and biased, and this is not surprising since “Salafis” only mention what advances their view while they cover up, rephrase, or declare weak whatever contradicts it. This is especially true of Albani, whose followers claim him as “the leading scholar of hadith of this age”(!) whereas he makes frequent mistakes, innovates in many of his rulings, and is generally unreliable except to those unschooled in the Islamic sciences. It would be more correct for “Salafis” to say: “He is our leading scholar,” for in this we would agree with them completely. However, it is a fact that no one who has actual knowledge in hadith and fiqh uses Albani’s books except that they check and verify anything they take from them against trustworthy scholars.
The present narration is a case in point, since Albani deliberately omits to mention the authentication of the narrators he seeks to declare weak, hiding basic evidence from his readers in order to mislead them, all because he is dead set against the issue at hand, even if it is authentically reported from the Mother of the Believers!
Following is a point-by-point refutation of Albani’s claims by the Moroccan hadith scholar `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari in his booklet entitled: Irgham al-mubtadi` al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi (The coercion of the unintelligent innovator to the effect that using the Prophet as a means is permissible p. 23-25):
Albani’s weakening of Sa`id ibn Zayd is rejected, because Sa`id is one of Muslim’s narrators, and Yahya ibn Ma`in declared him trustworthy (thiqa)!
The editor of Ghumari’s text, Ghumari’s student Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf says on the same page as the above:
Albani has adduced worthless proofs as is his habit when embellishing falsehood.
He cited whatever fit his whim from Ibn Hajar’s Taqrib, leaving out his mention that Sa`id ibn Zayd is one of Muslim’s narrators in his Sahih. Beware, therefore, of this tadlis (concealment) on his part!… He added Dhahabi’s notice on Sa`id ibn Zayd in the Mizan, and this is another deliberate cover-up, for he faithlessly omitted to mention what Ibn Hajar reported in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (4:29) from those who declared Sa`id ibn Zayd trustworthy, in addition to his being one of Muslim’s narrators:
– Bukhari said: “Muslim ibn Ibrahim narrated to us: Sa`id ibn Zayd Abu al-Hasan narrated to us, and he is reliable and a memorizer of hadith (saduq hafiz).”
– al-Duri said on the authority of Ibn Ma`in: “Sa`id ibn Zayd is trustworthy (thiqa).”
– Ibn Sa`d said: “He was trustworthy.”
– al-`Ujli said: “He is from Basra, and he is trustworthy.”
– Abu Zur`a said: “I heard Sulayman ibn Harb say: Sa`id ibn Zayd narrated to us, and he was trustworthy.”
– Abu Ja`far al-Darimi said: “Hibban ibn Hilal narrated to us: Sa`id ibn Zayd narrated to us, and he was a memorizer of hadith and he was reliable.”
– Ibn `Adi said: “There is no denounced narration from him except someone else also narrates it, and I consider him one of those in the reliable category.”
In addition to the above remarks it is noteworthy to mention that Albani cited Ahmad’s grading of Sa`id ibn Zayd as la ba’sa bihi which his translator rendered as “he is all right,” but neither the author nor the translator seems to know that in Imam Ahmad’s terminology la ba’sa bihi is identical with thiqa, which means “trustworthy” and is among the highest gradings of authentication! Ibn Salah in his Muqaddima (p. 134), Dhahabi in Lisan al-mizan (1:13), Sakhawi in Fath al-mughith, Ibn Hajar in Hadi al-sari, Abu Ghudda in his commentary to Lucknawi’s Raf` (p. 222 n. 3), as well as the editor of Nawawi’s al-Taqrib wa al-taysir (p. 51) have indicated that the equivalency of saying “There is no harm in him” with the grade of trustworthy (thiqa) obtains for many early authorities of the third century such as Ibn Ma`in, Ibn al-Madini, Imam Ahmad, Duhaym, Abu Zur`a, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ya`qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi, and others.
Albani continues in his list of reasons for weakening Darimi’s narration:
(ii) It is mawquf (stopping at the Companion), coming only from `A’isha and not from the Prophet, and even if the chain of narration up to `A’isha were authentic then it would not be a proof since it is something open to personal judgment in which even the Companions are sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect, and we are not bound to act upon that (!).
To this claim it is easy to reply that not only is the narration sound and authentic, but also that there is no objection related from any of the Companions to the act recommended by the Mother of the Believers, just as there was no objection on their part to the istisqa’ made by the man who came to the grave of the Prophet in the narration of Malik al-Dar cited below. This shows ijma` on the matter on the part of the Companions, and such ijma` is definitely binding in the sense that no one can declare unlawful or innovative something which they have tacitly declared lawful or desirable. As for the following the opinion of the Companions we say what Imam al-Shafi`i said as related by Ibn Qayyim in A`lam al-muwaqqi`in `an rabb al-`alamin (2:186-187): “Their opinion for us is better than our opinion to ourselves.”
Albani listed the following as his last reason for weakening Darimi’s narration:
(iii) Abu al-Nu`man… was originally a reliable narrator except that he deteriorated at the end of his life. The hadith master Burhan al-Din al-Halabi mentions him among those who deteriorated in later life in his book al-Muqaddima (p. 391) and he says: “The ruling about these people is that their narrations are accepted if reported from them by people who heard from them before they deteriorated. But narrations reported from them by those who heard from them after they deteriorated, or narrations reported from therm by people about whom we do not know whether they heard from them before they deteriorated or after, then these narrations are to be rejected.”I say: We do not know whether this report was heard by Darimi from him before or after his memory deteriorated, it is therefore not acceptable and cannot be used as evidence. [Footnote:] Shaykh al-Ghumari missed this weakness in Misbah al-zujaj (p. 43), just as it was ignored by another in order to give the impression to the people that this report is authentic(!).
Ghumari said regarding these claims about Abu al-Nu`man:
His weakening of Abu al-Nu`man is invalid, because Abu al-Nu`man’s deterioration did not affect what is narrated from him! al-Daraqutni said [as cited by Dhahabi in Mizan al-i`tidal (4:81)]: “He deteriorated at the end of his life, and no denounced hadith issued from him after his deterioration whatsoever, and he is trustworthy (thiqa).” As for what Ibn Hibban said, that “Many denounced things occurred in his narrations after his deterioration,” then al-Dhahabi refuted it when he said (4:8): “Ibn Hibban was unable to cite a single denounced narration from him, and the truth is just as Daraqutni said.”
Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki said in his book Shifa’ al-fu’ad bi ziyarat khayr al-`ibad (p. 152):
Abu al-Nu`man’s deterioration neither harms nor is detrimental to his reliability, since Bukhari in his Sahih narrated over one hundred hadiths from him, and no narration was taken from him after his deterioration, as Daraqutni said…. The chain of transmission is all right, in fact I consider it good. The scholars have cited as evidence many chains that are like it or less strong than it.

Following are Saqqaf’s further comments, beginning with Albani’s charge against Shaykh al-Ghumari:
We know full well that it is Albani who betrays scholarly trust and deliberately misinforms the people, even if he accuses others of disinformation…. In weakening Abu al-Nu`man he has again acted faithlessly. His quotation from al-Burhan al-Halabi’s book al-Ightibat bi man rumiya bi al-ikhtilat (p. 23) is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of his followers and those who only read his works! For it is necessary to also know that those who are branded as suffering from deterioration in the aforementioned book are divided among those whose narrations were unaffected by their deterioration and those whose narrations were affected. Abu al-Nu`man belongs to the first group, and al-Dhahabi made this clear in al-Mizan (4:8). Therefore our reply to Albani is: Shaykh al-Ghumari did not miss anything concerning this matter of deterioration, because he is a hadith scholar and a master memorizer (hafiz), however, it is you who have missed it, O slandering backbiter!

As for Albani’s quotation of Ibn Taymiyya’s claim in his al-Radd `ala al-Bakri (p. 68-74) whereby “a clear proof that it is a lie is the fact that no such opening existed above the house at all in the whole of the life of `A’isha”(!) then it is a weak objection which is no sooner brought up than cast out. Surely Imam al-Darimi and the scholars of the succeeding generations would know of such a detail better than latecomers. As for the authorities among the latter, then the hadith scholar and historian of Madina Imam `Ali al-Samhudi (d. 922) did not so much as look at Ibn Taymiyya’s objection, rather he confirmed the truth of Darimi’s narration by saying, after citing it in his Wafa’ al-wafa’ (2:549): al-Zayn al-Miraghi said: “Know that it is the Sunna of the people of Madina to this day to open a window at the bottom of the dome of the Prophet’s room, that is, of the blessed green dome, on the side of the Qibla.” I say: And in our time, they open the door facing the noble face (the grave) in the space surrounding the room and they gather there.”

So much for the claims of naysayers regarding istisqa’ through the Prophet.· The act of the Mother of the Believers `A’isha in the narration of Darimi is explicitly confirmed by Abu Talib’s famous line of poetry concerning istisqa’ through the Prophet as related in the book of istisqa’ in Bukhari’s Sahih:
`Abdullah ibn Dinar said: “I heard Ibn `Umar reciting the poetic verses of Abu Talib:
A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought,
A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows.
`Umar ibn Hamza said: Salim narrated from his father (Ibn `Umar) that the latter said:
“The poet’s saying came to my mind as I was looking at the face of the Prophet while he was praying for rain — and he did not get down till the rain water flowed profusely from every roof-gutter:
A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought,
A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows.
One sub-narrator added: “These were the words of Abu Talib.”
Note that in his translation of Bukhari (2:65), Muhammad Muhsin Khan alters the wording of the hadith to read: “A white person who is requested to pray for rain” in place of “by whose face rain is sought,” and Allah knows best the reason for this grave betrayal of the translator’s trust in the most important Islamic source after the Qur’an.
HADITH NUMBER 1: Refuting more on Aisha [ra] Hadith on tawassul
“ALLAH’S GENEROSITY TO HIS PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATH”
‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو النعمان ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏سعيد بن زيد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عمرو بن مالك النكري ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو الجوزاء أوس بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏قحط ‏ ‏أهل ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏قحطا ‏ ‏شديدا فشكوا إلى ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فقالت انظروا قبر النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاجعلوا منه ‏ ‏كوى ‏ ‏إلى السماء حتى لا يكون بينه وبين السماء سقف قال ففعلوا فمطرنا مطرا حتى نبت العشب وسمنت الإبل حتى ‏ ‏تفتقت ‏ ‏من الشحم فسمي عام ‏ ‏الفتق
Imam Dārimī relates from Abū al-Jawzā’ Aws bin ‘Abdullāh:
The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ‘Ā’ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophet’s grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave. The narrator says they did so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camels had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to the over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.
Another Reply and refutation of Albani the innovator
The famine gripping the people of Medina ended through the mediation of the Prophet’s grave. Heavy rains created a spring scenario all around. Men found their food and the animals found their fodder. And the rain that came about as a result of the Prophet’s mediation made the lands of Medina greener and more fertile and on account of over-harvesting, they named the year as the year of greenery and plenty.
Those who deny the conceptual relevance of intermediation have raised some objections against this tradition. One of the objections is that its chain of transmission is weak and so it cannot be offered as an argument.
The chain of transmission of this tradition is as follows:
Abū an-Nu‘mān heard it from Sa‘īd bin Zayd, he from ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī and he from Abū al-Jawzā’ Aws bin ‘Abdullāhwho has reported it.”
Below are given the allegations levelled against these narrators and a rebuttal of these baseless charges:
1. The name of Abū an-Nu‘mān ‘Ārim was Muhammad bin al-Fadl Sadūsī. They agree that he was a reliable reporter of traditions as is confirmed by Dhahabī in Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (4:7): “He was Imam Bukhārī’s teacher, memorizer of traditions and an extremely truthful person.” But their objection is that he had lost his marbles in the declining years of his age. Burhān-ud-Dīn Halabī, who possessed great knowledge of traditions, comments in his book al-Muqaddimah on this reporter along with others who had lost their memory in the closing years of their lives: “The ruling on these narrators is that the traditions reported by them before their loss of memory are acceptable, while the traditions after their deranged conditions are unacceptable. And if we do not know whether these traditions were received from them before or after their memory lapse, we should not accept these traditions from them either.” The objectors say that since we do not know whether Abū an-Nu‘mān has narrated this tradition before or after his loss of memory, we cannot adduce the tradition as evidence.

This objection not only lacks significance but also lacks credibility. Their objection is logically inconsistent. While they discard this tradition as weak, because it is the product of his loss of memory, they ignore other traditions though they are also the products of the same state of mind Should we ignore every tradtion of them in this way ? What stupid logic albani has here. Dhahabī says: ‘Imam Dāraqutnī comments, “Though he had lost his memory towards the end of his life, he never reported any tradition in this condition that could affect his veracity, therefore, he remains a truthful narrator.’ I insist that it is a report by that contemporary memorizer of traditions who is only matched by Imam Nasā’ī.” Ibn Hibbān is of the opinion that there are many incompatibilities in Abū an-Nu‘mān’s narrations after his loss of memory but Dhahabī rejects this opinion by asserting that Ibn Hibbān has failed to produce a single fact that establishes him as a misreporter of traditions. And the real position is the one that has been endorsed by Imam Dāraqutnī.[

Dhahabī, Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (4:8).

]

‘Irāqī has admitted in at-Taqyīd wal-īdāh that Imam Dhahabī has convincingly rebutted Ibn Hibbān’s statement. Dhahabī has explained it in al-Kāshif (3:79) that the change took place before death, but after the change he had not related any tradition and this also refute wahabis argument fully
Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī writes in Taqrīb-ut-tahdhīb (2:200) that Abū an-Nu‘mān was a sound narrator and the change came about in his last years.

Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī writes, “Abū an-Nu‘mān’s mental debility is neither damaging for him nor does it affect his credibility as a narrator because Imam Bukhārī in his as-Sahīh has taken more than one hundred traditions from him and has not taken a single tradition from him after his loss of memory as is stated by Imam Dāraqutnī.”[

Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī, Shifā’-ul-fu’ād bi-ziyārat khayr-il-‘ibād (p.152)

]

Besides Imam Bukhārī, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī and Abū ‘Alī Muhammad bin Khālid Zarīqī have also heard traditions from Abū an-Nu‘mān before his mental confusion set in[

Irāqī, at-Taqyīd wal-īdāh (p.462)

]

Imam Dārimī is one of the well-reputed teachers of Imam Bukhārī and other famous memorizers of traditions. Therefore, it was impossible for him to accept any tradition from Abū an-Nu‘mān after he had suffered a loss of memory. And the Wahabi argument is illogical and absurd.

2. An objection is raised against Sa‘īd bin Zayd Abū al-Hasan Basrī, brother of Hammād bin Zayd, that he is somewhat weak because Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has written about him in Taqrīb-ut-tahdhīb (1:296),“That is, he is extremely truthful but sometimes he commits an error.”

Dhahabī writes in Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (2:138), “Yahyā bin Sa‘īd has called him weak,
Sa‘dī says that he is not an argument and his traditions are weak and Nasā’ī etc., are of the opinion that he is not sound.”

The objections of those, who deny the validity of intermediation, are not only partial as they base them exclusively on these statements and references, but they are also based on prejudice as their arguments are not logical because they are tailored to their preconceptions.

A detailed refutation of their groundless objections above is presented as follows:

Dhahabī negates it. He says that the decrepitude attributed to Sa‘īd bin Zayd is incorrect because Imam Muslim accepted traditions from him

and Ibn Ma‘īn has called him authentic and trustworthy.
[ in al-Kāshif (1:286)]
Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has described it in detail in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (4:32-3):

“Imam Bukhārī said that Muslim bin Ibrāhīm reported to us that Sa‘īd bin Zayd Abū al-Hasan is extremely truthful and knows the traditions by heart.[ in

Bukhārī, at-Tārīkh-ul-kabīr (3:472) ]
“Dūrī has reported it from Ibn Ma‘īn that Sa‘īd bin Zayd is a trustworthy narrator.

“Ibn Sa‘d has also called him a reliable narrator. [

Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqāt-ul-kubrā (7:287) ]
“‘Ujlī comments that he belongs to Basrah and he is a dependable relater of traditions.
“Abū Zur‘ah said he heard it from Sulaymān bin Harb that Sa‘īd bin Zayd is trustworthy.“
Abū Ja‘far Dārimī said: Hibbān bin Hilāl reported to us that Sa‘īd bin Zayd has related to us that tradition and he is truthful and a preserver of traditions.
“Ibn ‘Adī has stated in al-Kāmil (3:1212-5) that Sa‘īd bin Zayd is truthful and he knows the traditions by heart. He has not related any inauthentic tradition except that someone else relates it and to me he happens to be among the (truthful) narrators.”

The famous compiler and exegete of traditions ‘Abdullāh bin Muhammad bin Siddīq al-Ghumārī from Morocco writes in his book Irghām-ul-mubtadī al-ghabī bi-jawāz-it-tawassul bi an-nabī writes that:

“Imam Ahmad bin Hambal has referred to Sa‘īd bin Zayd as laysa bihī ba’s. It means that there is no objection against him and he is absolutely truthful.

(

Imam Ahmad’s statement has been reproduced by Dhahabī in Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (2:138) and by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (4:32) )
Imam Ahmad’s expression is semantically identical with trustworthiness, which is considered the highest virtue by all traditionists of integrity.

Ibn Ma‘īn also identifies the term laysa bihī ba’s with trustworthiness.[

Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, Lisān-ul-Mīzān (1:13) ]

The traditionist Ibn-us-Salāh in al-Muqaddimah,

Sakhāwī in Fath-ul-mughīth,
Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī in Hady-us-sārī muqaddimah Fath-ul-bārī
Imam Nawawī in at-Taqrīb wat-taysīr
all above has have identified laysa bihī ba’s with veracity.
Besides, a number of traditionists of the third century (ah), for instance,
Ibn Ma‘īn, Ibn Madīnī, Abū Zur‘ah, Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī, Ya‘qūb bin Sufyān Fasāwī, etc., have invested laysa bihī ba’s with the distinction of veracity.
3. Ibn Hibbān has called ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī as veracious as Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī writes in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (8:96), “Ibn Hibbān has mentioned him in his book Kitāb-ut-thiqāt. Therefore, Ibn Hibbān’s acknowledgement of his credibility is based on truth and it is beyond any iota of doubt that Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, on the basis of his authenticity, has called ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī in Taqrīb-ut-tahdhīb (2:77),Sadūq lahū awhām (he is truthful but there are doubts about him).”

The word sadūq (truthful) used by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānīattests to the veracity of ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī and he has given it precedence over others.

Mahmūd Sa‘īd Mamdūh refers to it in his book Raf‘-ul-minārah (p.258) that ‘Abdullāh bin Ahmad, attributing it to his father, commented, “Annahū ka-annahū da“afahū (as if he weakened him).” I say that the word ka-anna (as if; as though) is doubt and suspicion; it cannot serve as an act of justification.

When ‘Abdullāh bin ‘Alī bin Madīnī referred to Hasan bin Mūsā Ashyab as wa ka-annahū da“afahū (and as if he weakened him), Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī endorsed him by saying: hādhā zann, la taqūmu bihī hujjah (it is suspicion, therefore, it cannot serve as a justification).[in

Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, Hady-us-sārī muqaddimah Fath-ul-bārī (p.397) ]
So this statement makes the veracity of ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī unquestionable. Dhahabī has explained it further in Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (3:286) and al-Mughnī (2:488).

Mahmūd Sa‘īd Mamdūh writes:“Ibn ‘Adī has bracketed ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī with ‘Amr bin Mālik Rāsibī in al-Kāmil (5:1799) and has dubbed him as a recanter narrator. Dhahabī has explained it in Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (3:285) and al-Mughnī (2:488) while Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has commented on it in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (8:95). Both these hadith-scholars have delinked ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī from ‘Amr bin Mālik Rāsibī and disproved the linkage forged by Ibn ‘Adī, which has driven some of the traditionists to label ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī as unreliable. These traditionists are not to blame as they have based their deductions on the conclusions drawn by Ibn ‘Adī without any conscious attempt at distortion as has been explained by Ibn-ul-Jawzī in Kitāb-ul-mawdū‘āt (2:145) and by Ibn Taymiyyah in Qā‘idah jalīlah fit-tawassul wal-wasīlah.”[

Mahmūd Sa‘īd Mamdūh, Raf‘-ul-minārah (pp.259-60) ]
Wahabi Albānī writes in Ta‘līq ‘alā Fadl-is-salāt ‘ala an-nabī (p.88): ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī is a reliable narrator as has been endorsed by Dhahabī. He has also confirmed this view in another book Silsilat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (5:608).

4. A large number of people have taken traditions from Abū al-Jawzā’ Aws bin ‘Abdullāh on the basis of his credibility and the direct transmission of this tradition from ‘Ā’ishah has also been established. In support of this contention it suffices to state that

Imam Muslim has recorded Abū al-Jawzā’ Aws’s narration through ‘Ā’ishah.
Imam Bukhārī says:

It was related to us by Musaddad who had heard it from Ja‘far bin Sulaymān, who from ‘Amr bin Mālik an-Nukrī who had reported it from Abū al-Jawzā’. He said: I spent twelve years with Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ā’ishah and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur’an about which I had not asked them.[

Bukhārī, at-Tārīkh-ul-kabīr (2:16-7) ]

Ibn S‘ad has related another tradition on these lines:Abū al-Jawzā’ has related: I lived as Ibn ‘Abbās’s neighbour for twelve years and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur’an about which I had not asked him.[

Ibn S‘ad, at-Tabaqāt-ul-kubrā (7:224) ]
Abu Na‘aym has added the following words to the tradition:

And my deputy visited the Mother of the Believers (‘Ā’ishah) every morning and evening. So I did not hear from any other quarter (except what I heard from her), nor did I hear from any other source (except from her) what Allah has enjoined about sin that I shall forgive him (the sinner) except the one who associates any partner with Me. [

Abū Na‘aym, Hilyat-ul-awliyā’ wa tabaqāt-ul-asfiyā’ (3:79) ]

According to Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, it by no means implies that he never met ‘Ā’ishāh afterwards.

So, the inference drawn by Imam Muslim from the frequency of visits clearly indicates that he had a face-to-face meeting with ‘Ā’ishah [ra] .
Thus when his meeting with ‘Ā’ishah has been established with irrefutable finality, the element of deceit and incredibility in his statement is automatically washed out and his tradition, therefore, acquires authenticity. To call him an impostor is, actually, to commit excess against his genuineness as a reporter, and to do him justice we have to acknowledge the obvious fact that his statement is based on sound transmission. This conclusion is compatible not only with the findings of Imam Muslim but also reflects the general drift of public opinion.

Abū Nu‘aym has confirmed the authenticity of a number of traditions by Abū al-Jawzā’ with the words ‘an ‘Ā’ishah (from ‘Ā’ishah)

[ in Hilyat-ul-awliyā’ wa tabaqāt-ul-asfiyā’ ]

Ibn-ul-Qaysarānī has also reported a tradition from Abū al-Jawzā’ by using the words sami‘a ‘Ā’ishah (he listened to ‘Ā’ishah).[

in Ibn-ul-Qaysarānī, al-Jam‘ bayn as-Sahīhayn (1:46) as quoted by Mahmūd Sa‘īd Mamdūh in Raf‘-ul-minārah (p.261) ]
This detailed discussion proves beyond doubt that these certificates of authenticity are not based on any forgery but on verifiable evidence, and this chain of transmission is sahīh (sound) or hasan (fair).

Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī says,This tradition has a good chain of transmission; rather, in my opinion, it is sound. The scholars have also acknowledged its soundnessand have established its genuineness on the basis of almost equally credible evidence.[ in

Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī, Shifā’-ul-fu’ād bi-ziyārat khayr–il-‘ibād (p.153) ]

Therefore, this tradition may be relied upon as a viable argument because, according to Imam Nasā’ī’s contention, a narrator may be discarded only when all the traditionists have unanimously rejected him/her.[ in

Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, Nuzhat-un-nazr bi-sharh nukhbat-ul-fikr fī mustalah hadith ahl-ul-athr (p.89) ]
Those who deny the relevance of intermediation object to the tradition as undependable as its range of reference is limited only to the Companion and does not extend up to the Prophet ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) himself. In their opinion, it is only one of ‘Ā’ishah’s statements and not a command to be indiscriminately followed. They add that, even if it carries the stamp of her certification, it cannot serve as cogent argument as it is based on personal opinion, which is generally characterized by fluctuation. Sometimes the personal opinion of a Companion may prove correct but at other occasions it may prove incorrect. Therefore, its application is not binding on the believers.

A simple answer to this baseless objection is that not only the tradition is properly certified, but no Companion has ever raised any objection against the mode of action prescribed by ‘Ā’ishah, nor has such an objection been ever reported, just as no objection has been raised against the person in the tradition reported by Mālik ad-Dār who prays for rain at the grave of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) ) These traditions reflect the collective opinion of the Companions and such a consensus is quite valid. An act, which enjoys the tacit support of the Companions, cannot be spelled out as invalid or a discredited form of innovation, and it is obligatory for us to follow the Companions.

In this context, Imam Shāf‘ī says, “For us, their opinion about us is far more authentic than our own opinion.”

[

Ibn-ul-Qayyim, A‘lām-ul-muwaqqi‘īn ‘an rabb-il-‘ālamīn (2:186) ]
This tradition clearly establishes the fact that ‘Ā’ishah [rA] commanded the natives of Medina to rely on the Prophet ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) in his grave as a source of intermediation for divine blessings.

Reply and refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah illogical objection as well
Ibn Taymiyyah has discarded the tradition as mere fabrication. According to him, during the entire life of ‘Ā’ishah, there was no such hole in the roof of the Prophet’s tomb.

objection is weak as watered tea because Imam Dārimī and the religious leaders and scholars who followed him were more deeply aware of these details.

For example

, a traditionist and historian from Medina, ‘Alī bin Ahmad Samhūdī has disconfirmed Ibn Taymiyyah and supported Imam Dārimī’s contention. According to him, Zayn-al-Mirāghī said, “Let it be known that it is a practice of the people of Medina to date that, during a period of drought, they open a window at the bottom of the dome in the Prophet’s tomb in the direction of prayer niche though the roof intervenes between the grave and the sky. I say that in our period, too, one of the gates in the boundary wall, enveloping the tomb, called al-mawājahah, that is, the door that opens towards the Prophet’s face, is flung open and people gather there (for prayer).

[ in

Samhūdī, Wafā’-ul-wafā (2:560) ]
The Ottoman Turks followed the practice of offering prayers through the mediation of the Prophet’s grave. The practice remained in vogue till the early years of the twentieth century. Whenever there was famine and scarcity of rain, the residents of Medina persuaded a six-or-seven-year-old child to climb the roof of the grave. (He performed the ablution before climbing over the roof.) The child tugged at the rope, which had been hung down the roof to close the hole in the grave, dug at the suggestion of the Mother of the Believers, ‘Ā’ishah. When there was no curtain between the sky and the grave, it started raining.
HADITH NUMBER 2 : THE HADITH OF THE BLIND MAN‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمود بن غيلان ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عثمان بن عمر ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏شعبة ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي جعفر ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عمارة بن خزيمة بن ثابت ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عثمان بن حنيف ‏ ‏أن رجلا ‏ ‏ضرير البصر ‏ ‏أتى النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فقال ادع الله أن يعافيني قال ‏ ‏إن شئت دعوت وإن شئت صبرت فهو خير لك قال ‏ ‏فادعه قال فأمره أن يتوضأ فيحسن وضوءه ويدعو بهذا الدعاء اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك ‏ ‏محمد ‏ ‏نبي الرحمة ‏ ‏إني ‏ ‏توجهت بك ‏ ‏إلى ربي في حاجتي هذه ‏ ‏لتقضى ‏ ‏لي اللهم ‏ ‏فشفعه ‏ ‏فيTirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf,that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said,“I’ve been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me.” The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak’as of prayer, and then say:“Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: “for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me”].”The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, “And if there is some need, do the same.”
“The hadith explicitly proves the validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a living intermediary, as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was alive at the time. The author of the article holds that the hadith implicitly shows the validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a deceased intermediary as well, since:The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told the blind man to go perform ablution (wudu) pray two rak’as, and then make the supplication containing the words, “O Muhammad, I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight,” which is a call upon somebody physically absent, a state of which the living and the dead are alike.
Supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a living or deceased intermediary is, in the author’s words, “not tawassul through a physical body, or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning attached to the person in both life and death, for the body is but the vehicle that carries that significance.And perhaps the most telling reason, though the author does not mention it, is that everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered to be done during his lifetime was “legislation” valid for all generations until the end of time unless proven otherwise by a subsequent indication from the Prophet himself (Allah bless him and grant him peace), the tawassul he taught during his lifetime not requiring anything else to be generalized to any time thereafter. “…..

Regarding the authenticity of this Hadith
This hadith was recorded was recorded by Imam Bukhari in his “al-Tarikh al-kabir”, by Ibn Majah in his “Sunan“, where he said it was rigorously authenticated (SAHIH),by Imam Nasa’i in “Amal al-yawm wa al-layla” termed it Sahih

by Abu Nu’aym in “Ma’rifa al-Sahaba”,

by Imam Baihaqi in “Dala’il al-nubuwwa” said hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih)

by Mundhiri in “al-Targhib wa al-tahrib”,said hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih)

by Haythami in “Majma’ al zawa’id wa manba’ al-fawa’id” said hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih)

by Tabarani in “al-Mu’jam al-kabir” said hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih)

by Ibn Khuzayma in his “Sahih“,

and by others. Nearly 15 hadith masters (“huffaz”, hadith authorities with more than 100,000 hadiths and their chains of transmission by memory) have explicitly stated that this hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih).

As mentioned above, it has come with a chain of transmission meeting the standards of Bukhari and Muslim, so there is nothing left for a critic to attack or slanderer to disparage concerning the authenticity of the hadith. Consequently, as for the permissibility of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through either a living or dead person, it follows by human reason, scholarship, and sentiment, that there is flexibility in the matter. Whoever wants to can either take tawassul or leave it, without causing trouble or making accusations, since it has been this thoroughly checked

( stated by sheikh nuh in Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a , 79-83).

__________________

HADITH NUMBER 3: THE HADITH OF THE MAN IN NEED After Death of Prophet [salehalawaalihi wasalam]Moreover, Tabarani, in his “al-Mu’jam al saghir”, reports a hadith from ‘Uthman ibn Hunayfthat a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need.The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter – this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar– so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said:“Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak’as of prayer therein, and say:‘O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I turn through you to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,’and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman].”So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion.‘Uthman asked, “What do you need?” and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, “I hadn’t remembered your need until just now,” adding, “Whenever you need something, just mention it.”

Then, the man departed, met Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, “May Allah reward you! He didn’t see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him.”

Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, “By Allah, I didn’t speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Can you not bear it?’ and the man replied, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is a great hardship for me.’ The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, ‘Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak’as of prayer and make the supplications.’”

Ibn Hunayf went on, “By Allah, we didn’t part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him.””

“This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead.

The account has been classified as rigously authenticated (SAHIH) by Baihaqi, Mundhiri, and Haythami.”

Regarding the authenticity of this
“The authenticity of Tabarani’s hadith of the man in need during the caliphate of Uthman (Allah be well pleased with him) is not discussed by the article in detail, but deserves consideration, since the hadith explicitly proves the legal validity of supplicating Allah (tawassul) through the deceased, for ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf and indeed all the prophetic Companions, by scholarly consensus (ijma’), were legally upright (‘udul), and are above being impugned with teaching someone an act of disobedience, much less idolatory (shirk).

The hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih),
as Tabarani explicitly states in his “al-Mu’jam al-saghir.”

hadith specialist Sheikh Shu’ayb Arna’ut, who after examining it, agreed that it was rigorously authenticated (sahih) as Tabarani indicated,

the Morrocan hadith specialist Sheikh ‘Abdullah Muhammad Ghimari, who characterized the hadith as “very rigorously authenticated,” and noted that hadith masters Haythami and Mundhiri had explicitly concurred with Tabarani on its being rigorously authenticated (sahih).

The upshot is that the recommendedness of tawassul to Allah Most High – through the living or the dead – is the position of the Shafi’i school, which is why both our author Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, and Imam Nawawi in his “Al-Adhkar (281-282)”, and “al-Majmu” explicitly record that “tawassul” through the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and asking his intercession are recommended.”


More reply to Albani and Wahabis regarding this Hadith

Al-Albani, may Allah forgive him, is a man who is motivated by ulterior purposes and desire. If he sees a hadith or a report ( athar ) that does not accord with his persuasion he straightway proceeds to foist it off as weak (da‘if) . By using guile and deception he prevails upon his readers that he is right; whereas, he is wrong. Rather, he is a sinner and a hoodwinker. By such duplicity he has succeeded in misguiding his followers who trust him and think that he is right. One of those who has been deceived by him is Hamdi al-Salafi who edited al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir 10. He had the impudence to declare a rigorously authentic hadith weak (da‘if / ) because it did not go along with his sectarian dogmas just as it did not concur with the persuasion of his teacher (Shaikh) . The proof of that is that what he says about the hadiths being weak is just what his Shaikh Albani who wahabis follow blindly said that hadith is weak in his book: al-Tawassul, p. 88.

This being the case, I wished to present the real truth of the matter and to expose the falsity of the claims of both the deceiver [Al-Albani] and the deceived [Hamdi al-Salafi] .

This is present is Al-Tabarani ص 18 ، ج 9، طبعة…. 14

Chain is : From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif

A man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn trying to get something done for himself.However, ‘Uthman didn’t pay any attention to him, nor did he look after his need. That man went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and complained about that to him. ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif said to him, “Go and perform ablution (wudu), then go to the mosque and pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then say: ‘O Allah, I ask You and I approach You through your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I approach my Lord through you that my need be fulfilled,’ then mention your need. Thereafter come to me that I might go with you.”

Then the man went away and did what he was told. After that he went to the door of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn; whereupon the doorkeeper took him by the hand and ushered him into ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn who sat him down beside him on his mat and said to him, “What can I do for you?” He told him what he needed and ‘Uthmàn had that done for him and then he said to him, “I didn’t remember your problem until now. Whenever you need anything come to me.” Thereupon the man left him and went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and said, “May Allah bless you, ‘Uthmàn wouldn’t look after me, nor even pay attention to me until you spoke to him about me.” ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif replied, “I swear by Allah that I didn’t speak to him.

Actually, I saw a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] and complain to him about losing his sight. The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] said to him, “Wouldn’t you rather show patience?” He replied, “O Messenger of Allah, I don’t have a guide and the matter has become an ordeal for me.” The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] saidto him, “Go and make ablution (wudu), then pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then make this supplication (du‘a’) . I swear by Allah, we hadn’t gone away, nor had we remained long time talk when the man returned as if he had never suffered any affliction.

Reference:

Al-Tabarani declared this report to be rigorously authentic ,sahih

al-Haithami in his Majma‘ al-Zawà’id, p. 179, vol. 2 rigorously authentic ,sahih

al-Mundhiri in his al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib rigorously authentic ,sahih

Now Quoting the Wahabi Argument

Hamdi al-Salafi contradicted him saying:

“There is no doubt about the authenticity of that part of the hadith [concerning the story of the blind man] the doubt concerns the [first part of] the story [concerning ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif’s instructions to the man who sought the help of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affan] which heretics (mubtadi‘ah) adduce attempting to prove the legitimacy of their heretical practice of calling the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] for his intercession. [That part of the story is in doubt for the reasons which we will explain.]

Firstly, as al-Tabarani mentioned, Shabib [who is one of the narrators mentioned in the report’s chain of narration (sanad) is alone in reporting this hadith.

Then, Shabib’s narrations are not bad (la ba’sa bihi) on two conditions: first, thathis son Ahmad be the one who narrates from him; second, that Shabib’s narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid. However, in the present case, Shabib’s narration is reported by [three persons]: Ibn Wahb, and Shabib’s two sons Ismà‘il and Ahmad.

As for Ibn Wahb, extremely reliable narrators (al-thiqah) criticized Ibn Wahb’s narrations from Shabib, as they criticized Shabib himself. And as for Shabib’s son, Isma‘il, he is unknown.

Although Ahmad also reports this hadith from Shabib, it is not Shabib’s report from Yunus ibn Yazid [which (as Hamdu pretends) is what the experts in narration stipulated as the condition for the correctness of Shabib’s narrations].

Furthermore, the experts in narration (al-muhaddithun) are at variance concerning the text of this hadith which they narrate from Ahmad [ibn Shabib].

Ibn al-Sunni reported the hadith in his ‘Amal al-Yaumwa ’l-Lailah and al-Hakim reported it with three different chains of narration (sanad) neither of them mentioning the story [of ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see ‘Uthmàn].

Al-Hakim reported the hadith by way ‘Aun ibn ‘Amàrah al- Basri from Rauh ibn al-Qasim.

My teacher (Shaikh) Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani:“

Even though ‘Aun is weak (da‘if), still his version of the hadith (riwàyah) [without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is preferable to Shabib’s since Rauh’s narration agreeswith the narrations of Shu‘bah and Hamàd ibn Salamah through Abu Ja‘f`ar al-Khatmi[without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif].”

[Same was said Albàni in his al-Tawassul, p. 88 168 ، ج 6، طبعة آذا و آذا…. 19 – دلائل النبوُة، ص 167]

[end quote]

Now let us see first how many Imams [rah] has mentioned the incident of story of the blind man

Al-Tirmidhi reported it and said that it is hasan sahih gharib, and he remarked that he didn’t know this hadith by any other chain of narration (sanad).

Ibn Khuzaimah reported the hadith with the same chain in his hadith

Ahmad reported it in his al- Musnad, p. 138, vol. 4;

al-Nasà’i in his ‘Amal al-Yaum wa al-Lailah, p. 417;

Ibn Màjah in his al-Sunan, p. 441, vol. 1;

al-Bukhàri in his al-Tàrikh al-Kabir, p. 210, vol.6;

al-Tabarani in his al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, p.19, vol. 9; and also in his Kitàb al-Du‘à’, p. 1289, vol. 2;

al-Hàkim in his al-Mustadrak, p. 313 and p. 519, vol. 1; he declared it to be a rigorously authentic hadith (sahih),

►and al-Dhahabi affirmed its authenticity [in his annotations on al-Mustadrak]

Al-Baihaqi reported the hadith in his Dalà’ilu al-Nubuwah, p. 166, vol. 6, and in his al-Da‘wat al-KabIR .

In spite of al-Tirmidhi’s disacknowledgement, there is another chain of this hadith, which is what the specialists call mutàba‘ah / متابعة .

Shu‘bah reported the same hadith with the chain (sanad) which Hammàd ibn Salamah reported from Abu Ja‘far in al-Tirmidhi’s version.

►‘Abdullàh al-Ghumàri mentioned the names of the authorities who reported this hadith in his book al-Radd al-Muhkam al-Matin ‘alà Kitàb al-Qaul al- Mubin, (Cairo, Maktabat al-Qàhirah, 3rd ed., 1986), pp. 144-149, the different sources of the hadith,
and its alternate chains (mutàba‘ah)

► as did Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh in his Raf‘u al-Manàrah fi Takhrij Ahàdith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah / رفع المنارة في تخريج أحاديث التوسُّل والزيارة (Amman, Jordan, Dàr al- Imàm al-Nawawi, 1st ed., 1995), pp.94-95


First Point

The story [of ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see ‘Uthman] was reported by al-Bayhaqi in Dalà ’ilu’l-Nubuwah by way of:

Ya‘qub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sa‘id reported to me that his father reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn
and he mentioned the story in its entirety.

Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn is [Abu Yusuf] al-Fasawi (d. 177 h) [ Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn is mentioned in Ibn Hajr’s reputed and authoritative dictionary of narrators: Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut, Dàr al-Rashád, 3rd ed.,1991), p.608.] And the Hàfiz, the Imàm said the utterly reliable transmitter (al-thiqah) rather, he is better than utterly reliable (thiqah) .

The chain of narration (sanad) of this hadith is utterly reliable (sahih /24)Thus the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is quite authentic.

Also

Hàfiz al- Mundhiri mentioned in his al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib: p. 606, vol. 2;26 called it rigorously authentic (sahih)

Hafiz al-Haithami mentioned it in his Majma‘ al-Zawà’id: p. 179, vol. 2.28 called it rigorously authentic (sahih)


Second Point

Ahmad ibn Shabib is one of the narrators that al-Bukhari depended on; al-Bukhàri reported hadith from Ahmad ibn Shabib both in his Sahih Bukari and in his al-Adab al-Mufrad.

Abu Hàtim al-Ràzi also declared him [Ahmad ibn Shabib] to be utterly reliable (thiqah) , and both he and Abu Zur‘ah wrote down his hadith.

Ibn ‘Adi mentioned that the people of Basrah [that is, the experts in the science of hadith and criticism] considered Ahmad ibn Shabib to be utterly reliable (thiqah)

‘Ali al-Madini wrote down Ahmad ibn Shabib hadith.

Ahmad’s father, Shabib ibn Sa‘id al-Tamimi al-Habati al-Basri is also one of the narrators whom al-Bukhari depended on in both his Sahih Bukhari and his al-Adab al-Mufrad

Abu Zur‘ah considered Shabib to be thiqah

Abu Hatim considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Nisà’i considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Dhuhali considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Dàraqutni considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Tabarani considered Shabib to be thiqah in
mentioned this in his al-Mu‘jam al-Saghir (pub. Data), p. 184, vol. 1, and in his al- Mu‘jam al-Kabir (pub. Data), p. 17, vol. 9.


Abu Hatim
related that Shabib had in his keeping the books of Yunus ibn Yazid and that Shabib was reliable (salih) in hadith and that there was nothing wrong with him (là ba’sa bihi / ) .

Ibn ‘Adi said:
Shabib had a copy of the book of al-Zuhri. He had in his keeping sound hadith which Yunus related from al-Zuhri. ” 38

[‘Ali] ibn al-Madini said about Shabib: “He was utterly reliable (thiqah). He used to go to Egypt for trade. His book was authentic (sahih). ”

Mahmud pointing towards another forgery of Albani

Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh observed in his book Raf`‘u al-Minàrah fi Takhrij Ahàdith al-Tawassul wal-Ziyàrah, p. 100 that al-Albàni in quoting the above statement of ‘Ali al-Madini in his al-Tawassul, p. 86, deliberately omitted the first part of his statement and the most important part of it; namely, that Shabib was utterly reliable (thiqah). Al-Albàni wrote in his al-Tawassul: “‘Ali al-Madini said: ‘He used to go to Egypt on business….’” Nowhere did Albàni mention that ‘Ali al-Madini said that Shabib was utterly reliable (thiqah). Given that the entire thrust of Al-Albàni’s argument is that Shabib is not reliable,
al-Albàni’s omission of ‘Ali al-Madini’s confirmation of Shabib’s reliability is a very serious matter.

Keep in mind that the whole issue under consideration here is the examination of the evidence for one of the practices (sunnahs) of the Last of the Messengers [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] (that is, intercession / التوسل ) and the scrutinizing of the witnesses who tendered that evidence. Thus any tampering of the evidence, or misrepresentation of the witnesses is a grave breach of trust, an act of perfidy against the religion of Islàm

Shaikh Mahmud mentioned in his Raf‘u al-Minàrah fi Takhroj Ahadith al-Tawassul wal-Ziyàrah, p.98, that Shaikh ul Bidah Al-Albàni is the first person to claim that Shabib is a weak narrator in history of Islam .

Other Imams [rah] of classical Islam who consider Shabib to be Thiqa are

Ali al-Madini consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Muhammad ibn Yahyà al-Dhuhali consider Shabib to be Thiqa,

al-Daraqutni consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Tabaràni consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Ibn Hibbàn consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Hàkim consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Abu Zur‘ah consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Abu Hàtim consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Nasà’i consider Shabib to be Thiqa

As you notice there is no stipulation that his narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih) .

Rather,

Ibn al-Madiniaffirms that his book was authentic [ in Raf‘ al-Minarah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah , pp. 99-100, that the accuracy ( ضبط ) of a narrator [which along with integrity (‘adàlah / عدالة ) establishes reliability] is of two kinds: accuracy in respect of his memory ( الحفظ ضبط), and accuracy in respect of what he has written down (dabt al-kitàbah). ‘Ali al-Madini first declares that Shabib is utterly reliable (thiqah) without stating any condition. Thereafter, he reinforces that by stating that his book is also authentic without making his reliability conditional on being from that book.

while Ibn ‘Adi confined himself to commenting about Shabib’s copy of al-Zuhri’s book not intending to intimate anything about the rest of Shabib’s narrations. So what Al-Albàni claims [namely, that Shabib’s narrations are authentic on the condition that he narrate from Yunus ibn Yazid] is deception and a breach of academic and religious trust.

What I have said [about Shabib’s unconditional reliability] is further corroborated by the fact that [another hadith which Shabib related; namely] the hadith about the blind man [who came to the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]to plead him to pray for him] was declared to be authentic by the hadith experts (huffaz ) although Shabib did not narrate this hadith from Yunus by way of al-Zuhri. Rather, he related it from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim.

Furthermore, al-Albani claims that since some narrators whose hadith are mentioned by Ibn al-Sunni and al-Hakim did not mention the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif], the story is doubtful (da‘if ) . This is another example of Al-Albàni’s trickery. People who have some knowledge about the principles of the science of hadith know that some narrators report a given hadith in its entirety, while others may choose to abridge it according to their purpose at hand.

Al-Bukhari, for example, does that routinely in his Sahih where Imam Bukhari [rah] often mentions a hadith in abridged form while it is given by someone else in complete form.

Moreover, the person who has related the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] in al-Bayhaqi’s report is an extraordinary Imàm: Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn.

Abu Zur‘ah al-Dimashqi says about him: “Two men from the noblest of mankind came to us; one of them, Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn the most widely-traveled of the two, defies the people of Iraq to produce a single man who can narrate [as well] as he does. ”

Al-Albàni ’s declaring the narration of ‘Aun, which in fact is weak, to be better than the narration of those who narrated the story [of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is a third aspect of Al-Albani’s duplicity and fraud because when al-Hakim related the hadith of the blind man in an abridged form by way of ‘Aun, he remarked :

Shabib ibn Sa‘id al-Habati has given the same hadith by way of Rauh ibn al-Qàsim with some additions to the text (matn ) and the chain of narrators (isnàd) . The decision in the matter is Shabib’s since he is utterly reliable (thiqah) and trustworthy (ma’mun) .

What al-Hakim says emphasizes a precept which is universally recognized by the experts in the science of hadith (al-muhaddithun) and the principles of the holy law (usul al-fiqh) ; namely, that additional wording related by a narrator who is utterly reliable (thiqah) is acceptable (maqbulah ) , and, furthermore, someone who remembered something is a proof against someone who didn’t remember it.

Third Point

Al-Albani saw al-Hakim’s statement but he didn’t like it, so he ignored it, and obstinately and dishonestly insisted on the superiority of ‘Aun’s weak narration.

It has been made clear that the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is rigorously authentic (sahih) in spite of Al-Albàni’s [and Ibn Taimiyah’s] deceitful attempts to discredit it. The story shows that seeking the Prophet’s [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]intercession after his passing away is permissible since the Companion who reported the hadith understood that it was permissible and the understanding of the narrator is significant in the view of the holy law (shari‘ah) , for it has its weight in the field of deducing (istinbat ) the detailed rules of the holy law (shari‘ah) .

We say according to the understanding of the narrator for the sake of argument; otherwise, in actuality, ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif’s instructing the man to seek the intercession of the Prophet was according to what he had heard from the Prophet as the hadith of the blind man [which ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif himself related] establishes.

Ibn Abi Khaithamah
stated in his Tàrikh [which is a genre of writing which deals with the history and reputation of narrators of hadith] :

Muslim ibn Ibràhim related to me that Hammàd ibn Salamah said: Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami related to me from ‘Amarah ibn Khuzaimah from ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif :

A blind man came to the Prophetand said: “I have lost my sight. Pray to Allah for me.”

He answered: “Go and make ablution and then pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, and then say: ‘O Allah, I ask You and I approach you through my Prophet Muĥammad, The Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession with Allah that my sight should be restored. O Allah, accept my intercession for myself and accept the intercession of my Prophet for the restoration of my sight.’ If ever you have any need do like that.”

The chain of narration (isnàd) of this hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih).
The last clause of the hadith constitutes the express permission of the Prophet to seek his intercession whenever there occurred any need.Not withstanding, Ibn Taimiyah objected on feeble grounds that this last clause comprehended some covert technical defect (‘illah) [which prejudices the authenticity of the hadith or at least its last clause]. I have demonstrated the invalidity of those grounds elsewhere.

Followinng Imams Called this Hadith Sahih and refuted Ibn Taymiyyah

Al-Tirmidhi reported it and said that it is hasan sahih gharib, and he remarked that he didn’t know this hadith by any other chain of narration (sanad).

Ibn Khuzaimah reported the hadith with the same chain in his hadith

Ahmad reported it in his al- Musnad, p. 138, vol. 4;

al-Nasà’i in his ‘Amal al-Yaum wa al-Lailah, p. 417;

Ibn Màjah in his al-Sunan, p. 441, vol. 1;

al-Bukhàri in his al-Tàrikh al-Kabir, p. 210, vol.6;

al-Tabarani in his al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, p.19, vol. 9; and also in his Kitàb al-Du‘à’, p. 1289, vol. 2;

al-Hàkim in his al-Mustadrak, p. 313 and p. 519, vol. 1; he declared it to be a rigorously authentic hadith (sahih),

►and al-Dhahabi affirmed its authenticity [in his annotations on al-Mustadrak]

Al-Baihaqi reported the hadith in his Dalà’ilu al-Nubuwah, p. 166, vol. 6, and in his al-Da‘wat al-KabIR .

In spite of al-Tirmidhi’s disacknowledgement, there is another chain of this hadith, which is what the specialists call mutàba‘ah / متابعة .

Shu‘bah reported the same hadith with the chain (sanad) which Hammàd ibn Salamah reported from Abu Ja‘far in al-Tirmidhi’s version.

►‘Abdullàh al-Ghumàri mentioned the names of the authorities who reported this hadith in his book al-Radd al-Muhkam al-Matin ‘alà Kitàb al-Qaul al- Mubin, (Cairo, Maktabat al-Qàhirah, 3rd ed., 1986), pp. 144-149, the different sources of the hadith,
and its alternate chains (mutàba‘ah)

► as did Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh in his Raf‘u al-Manàrah fi Takhrij Ahàdith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah / رفع المنارة في تخريج أحاديث التوسُّل والزيارة (Amman, Jordan, Dàr al- Imàm al-Nawawi, 1st ed., 1995), pp.94-95


First Point

The story [of ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see ‘Uthman] was reported by al-Bayhaqi in Dalà ’ilu’l-Nubuwah by way of:

Ya‘qub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sa‘id reported to me that his father reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn
and he mentioned the story in its entirety.

Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn is [Abu Yusuf] al-Fasawi (d. 177 h) [ Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn is mentioned in Ibn Hajr’s reputed and authoritative dictionary of narrators: Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut, Dàr al-Rashád, 3rd ed.,1991), p.608.] And the Hàfiz, the Imàm said the utterly reliable transmitter (al-thiqah) rather, he is better than utterly reliable (thiqah) .


Ibn Taymiyyah Deviance example # 1

Indeed, Ibn Taimiyah is characteristically audacious in rejecting hadith which do not conform with his purpose at hand even if those hadith are rigorously authentic (sahih) .

A good example of that is the following case: Al-Bukhari reported in his sahih:

“Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.”

This hadith is in agreement with the [clear-cut] evidence of the Qur`an, the sunnah, reason, and certain consensus (al-ijmà‘ al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world, he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah] .

Hafiz Ibn Hajr
remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:

“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ” [fath ul bari]

Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything. ”

Ibn Taymiyyah Deviance example # 2

Another example of Ibn Taimiyah’s audacity in rejecting hadith is the case of the hadith:

“The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]ordered the doors which opened on the mosque from the street to be sealed, but he left ‘Ali’s door [open].”

This hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih)
.

Ibn al-Jauzi was mistaken by mentioning it in his collection of forged hadiths, al-Maudu‘àt. Hafiz [Ibn Hajr] corrected him in his al-Qaul al-Musaddad: “Ibn Taimiyah because of his well-known bias against ‘Ali was not content with Ibn al-Jauzi’s declaration that the hadith was forged, but took the initiative to add from his own bag [of fraud] thepretence that the hadith experts (al-muhaddithun) are agreed that the hadith is forged. Ibn Taimiyah has rejected so many hadith simply because they are irreconcilable with his opinions that it is hard to keep track of the instances.

Abdullàh al-Ghumàri has mentioned in his numerous works a great number of such instances of Ibn Taimiyah’s dishonesty. His book : al-Radd al-Muhkam al-Matin ‘alà al-Kitàb al-Mubin contains a lot of examples. Many other ‘ulamà’ (Muslim religious scholars ) have complained about this trait in Ibn Taimiyah. Among them Taqi al-Din al-Subki , Ibn Hajr al-Makki, Taqi al-Din al-Husni, ‘Arabi al- Tubbàni, Ahmad Zaini Dahlàn, Muhammad Zahid al-Kauthari.


Fourth Point

In order to conciliate al-Albàni, let us suppose that the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is weak, and that the Ibn Abi Khaithamah’s version of the hadith [with the addition: Wheneveryou have any need do like that.] is defective (mu‘allal) as Ibn Taimiyah would have it; still the hadith of the blind man is quite enough to prove the permissibility of seeking the intercession of the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]since the fact that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]taught the blind man to seek his intercession on that occasion shows the propriety of seeking it in all circumstances.

Moreover, it is not allowable to refer to such intercession as a heretical departure (bid‘ah ), nor is it allowable to arbitrarily restrict such intercession to the lifetime of the Prophet .

Indeed, whoever restricts it to his lifetime is really a heretic because he has disqualified a rigorously authentic hadith and precluded its implementation, and that is unlawful (haram).

Al-Albàni, may Allah forgive him, is bold to claim conditionality an abrogation simply because a text prejudices his preconceived opinions and persuasion. If the hadith of the blind man was a special dispensation for him, the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]would have made that clear as he made it clear to Abu Burdah that the sacrifice of a two year old goat would fulfill his duty; whereas, it would not suffice for others. Furthermore, it is not admissible to suppose that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] might have delayed explaining a matter in detail when his followers needed that knowledge at that time.

A Subterfuge and its Preclusion

Suppose somebody says that the reason we have to restrict the application of this hadith to the lifetime of the Prophet is that it involves calling (nidà’) the Prophet[whereas, it is not possible to call him after his death.] We reply that this objection is to be rejected because there are numerous reports (mutawatir) from the Prophet concerning his instruction about what one should recite during the tashahhud of prayer, and that contains the greeting of peace (salàm) for him with mention of him in the vocative form: Peace be upon you, O Prophet! Al-salàmu ‘àlaika ayyuha al-nabiyu That is the very formula which Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Ibn Zubair, and Mu‘àwiyah taught the people from the mimbar. Thereafter, it became an issue on which there was consensus (ijmà‘) as Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taimiyah affirmed.

Al-Albàni, because he is prone to schism (ibtidà‘ ), violated the consensus and
insisted on following an opinion reported of Ibn Mas‘ud: “Then when he died we said: Peace be on the Prophet (al-salàmu ‘alà al-nabiyu).” Indeed, violating the hadith and consensus is the essence of heresy (ibtidà‘ )

Furthermore, there are authentic reports from the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]which inform us that our deeds are presented to the Prophet [in his blessed grave] as are our supplications for his peace (al-salàm ) and honor (al-salah / ) . There are also authentic reports about angels which travel about the earth in order to convey to the Prophet any greetings of peace and honor that anyone of his people might happen to make for him. Also definitive texts (tawàtur / and consensus ( ‘ijmà’ ) establish that the Prophet is alive in his grave, and that his blessed body does not decay. After all that, how can anybody dare to claim that it is not allowable to call the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]in seeking his intercession? After all, is that in any different than calling him in tashahhud?

Unfortunately, Al-Albàni is perversely obstinate and opinionated, as are the Albani’ites, [that is, his blind, fanatic followers].So much for my rebuttal of Al-Albàni.

As for the person called Hamdi al-Salafi, there’s no need to refute him separately because he merely echoes Al-Albàni.

Another thing which I should establish here is that Al-Albàni is not to be depended on in his judgments about hadith authenticity, nor their weakness because he routinely employs a variety of tactics to mislead, and he does not disdain to betray his trust in transmitting the opinions of the ‘ulamà’ (religious scholars) distorting their words and meanings. Moreover, he has had the impudence to oppose the consensus and to claim the abrogation (naskh) of texts without proof. He commits such excesses because of his ignorance of the principles [of the science of fiqh] and the rules of inference and deduction (al-istinbat )

He claims he is struggling against heretical innovation (bid‘ah ) by forbidding the practice of intercession, and by forbidding people to use the epithet sayyidinà when mentioning the name of the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam], and by forbidding them to recite the Qur‘àn for the sake [of the souls] of the deceased. However, the fact of the matter is that by doing that he commits a real heresy (bid‘ah) by forbidding what Allah has permitted, and by verbally abusing the Asharites and the Sufis.

Indeed, he is one of those [to whom the Qur‘àn referred by its words:] who thinks they are doing good; however, how wrong is what they think.

We ask Allah to preserve us from what He has afflicted Al-Albani with, and we seek refuge in Him from all evil.

All praise is for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. May Allah bless Our Master Muhammad and all his noble people. [ ………. ]

Shabib and the Hadith of the Man in Need

What follows is a summary from all that has already been mentioned [with some other additional useful points] by our shaykh GF Haddad, [I have not taken it upon myself on this occasion to discuss the other issues brought up by those who have falsely labeled the hadith weak]

We will deal with the sanad of two versions primarily:


1) The narrators of Tabarani’s version are as follows:

From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif


2) Imam al-Bayhaqi in Dalà ’ilu’l-Nubuwah reports the hadith with the following sanad:

Ya‘qub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sa‘id reported to me that his father [Shabib] reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn and he mentioned the story in its entirety.

[Take note: Imam Bayhaqi’s chain does not contain the narrator Ibn Wahb]


Here is the exact wording from al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il (no. 2417)
with highlighting of what was mentioned above in point no. 2:

أخبرنا أبو سعيد عبد الملك بن أبي عثمان الزاهد ، رحمه الله ، أنبأنا الإمام أبو بكر محمد بن علي بن إسماعيل الشاشي القفال ، قال : أنبأنا أبو عروبة ، حدثنا العباس بن الفرج ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن شبيب ، حدثنا أبي ، عن روح بن القاسم ، عن أبي جعفر المديني ، عن أبي أمامة بن سهل بن حنيف أن رجلا كان يختلف إلى عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه في حاجته ، وكان عثمان لا يلتفت إليه ولا ينظر في حاجته ، فلقي عثمان بن حنيف فشكى إليه ذلك ، فقال له عثمان بن حنيف : ائت الميضأة فتوضأ ، ثم ائت المسجد فصل ركعتين ، ثم قل : اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة ، يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فتقضي لي حاجتي ، واذكر حاجتك ، ثم رح حتى أرفع ، فانطلق الرجل وصنع ذلك ، ثم أتى باب عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه ، فجاء البواب ، فأخذ بيده فأدخله على عثمان ، فأجلسه معه على الطنفسة ، فقال : انظر ما كانت لك من حاجة ، ثم إن الرجل خرج من عنده فلقي عثمان بن حنيف ، فقال له : جزاك الله خيرا ما كان ينظر في حاجتي ولا يلتفت إلي حتى كلمته ، فقال عثمان بن حنيف : ما كلمته ولكني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وجاءه ضرير فشكى إليه ذهاب بصره فقال له النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” أوتصبر ؟ ” ، فقال : يا رسول الله ، ليس لي قائد ، وقد شق علي ” ، فقال : ” ائت الميضأة فتوضأ ، وصل ركعتين ثم قل : اللهم ، إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك نبي الرحمة ، يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فيجلي لي عن بصري ، اللهم شفعه في وشفعني في نفسي ” قال عثمان : فوالله ما تفرقنا طال بنا الحديث حتى دخل الرجل كأن لم يكن به ضرر ، وقد رواه أحمد بن شبيب ، عن سعيد ، عن أبيه أيضا بطوله . أخبرنا أبو علي الحسن بن أحمد بن إبراهيم بن شاذان ، أنبأنا عبد الله بن جعفر بن درستويه ، حدثنا يعقوب بن سفيان ، حدثنا أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد ، فذكره بطوله . وهذه زيادة ألحقتها به في شهر رمضان سنة أربع وأربعين ، ورواه أيضا هشام الدستوائي ، عن أبي جعفر ، عن أبي أمامة بن سهل ، عن عمه وهو عثمان بن حنيف

The salafis/wahabis have attempted to weaken these chains due to the presence in it of Shabib [ibn Sa‘id al-Tamimi al-Habati al-Basri] so it is important that we clarify his status amongst the scholars of Hadith.

The problem the Salafis have with this narrator as I can ascertain from reading shaykh ul bida’h al-Albani’s book on Tawassul is as follows:

They believe him to be a weak narrator from memory and his hadith are rejected unless, they claim, his narrations are from his book which he narrated from Yunus and his son in turn narrated from him. So, according to the Salafis, unless the chain containing Shabib is: [ Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus ] the hadith containing Shabib are all weak.

InshaAllah we shall expose the error in this claim and prove that it is not supported by any of the Ulema.

SECTION 1:

First, let us look at the authentication [ta’dil] of Shabib amongst the Ulema:

Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 4, no. 534)
mentioned Shabib as follows:
[ 534 ] خ خد س البخاري وأبي داود في الناسخ والمنسوخ والنسائي شبيب بن سعيد التميمي الحبطي أبو سعيد البصري روى عن أبان بن أبي عياش وروح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي وغيره وعنه بن وهب ويحيى بن أيوب وزيد بن بشر الحضرمي وابنه أحمد بن شبيب قال بن المديني ثقة كان يختلف في تجارة إلى مصر وكتابه كتاب صحيح وقال أبو زرعة لا بأس به وقال أبو حاتم كان عنده كتب يونس بن زيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به وقال النسائي ليس به بأس وقال بن عدي ولشبيب نسخة الزهري عنده عن يونس عن الزهري أحاديث مستقيمة وحدث عنه بن وهب بأحاديث مناكير وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قلت وقال بن يونس في تاريخ الغرباء مات بالبصرة سنة ست وثمانين ومائة فيما ذكره البخاري وقال الدارقطني ثقةونقل بن خلفون توثيقه عن الذهلي ولما ذكره بن عدي وقال الكلام المتقدم قال بعده ولعل شبيبا لما قدم مصر في تجارته كتب عنه بن وهب من حفظه فغلط ووهم وأرجو أن لا يتعمد الكذب وإذا حدث عنه ابنه أحمد فكأنه شبيب آخر يعني يجود وقال الطبراني في الأوسط ثقة


Shabib in Ta’rikh al-Kabir of Imam al-Bukhari (vol. 4)

[ 2628 ] شبيب بن سعيد نا يونس بن يزيد وعن محمد بن عمر روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد البصري

Shabib ibn Sa’eed in Thiqat of Ibn Hibban

[ 13614 ] شبيب بن سعيد الحبطي أبو سعيد من أهل مصر يروى عن محمد بن عمرو ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي روى عنه بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب وهو الذي يروى عن شعبة وروح بن القاسم


Shabib in al Jarh wa Ta’dil (4/359, no. 1572) of Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi

[ 1572 ]
شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري

روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو

روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر

From the above it can be collated that the following made Tawthiq on Shabib :


Ibn al-Madini
said: Thiqa – Trustworthy

Abu Zur’a: La Ba’sa bi-hi – There is no harm in him

Abu Hatim:
Wa huwa sâlih al-Hadith la ba’sa bihi: He is passable in Hadith, there is no harm in him

Nasa’i: Laysa bihi ba’s – There is no harm (in his reports)

Ibn Hibban
listed him in his book on Thiqat (trustworthy narrators)

Daraqutni:
Thiqa – Trustworthy (This tawthiq from al-Daraqutni was reported by his pupil, Abu Abdullah al-Hakim in his Sawalat (no. 353) )

Al-Dhuhli
made Tawthiq (declared him Thiqa)

Tabarani
declared him Thiqa in al-Awsat (and in his al-Saghir, no. 509)

Bukhari l
isted him in his Ta’rikh al-Kabir and made no disparagement on him at all, even though he mentioned that Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib. We also know that Imam Al-Bukhari narrated via him in his Sahih.

Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1/526) declared Shabib to be Thiqa Ma’mun – Trustworthy and reliable – which is a high form of making tawthiq on a narrator

So, from what was mentioned by Sh. Mamduh and provided by Sh. Abul Hasan above we conclude the following:


A. The following ulema have declared Shabib to be utterly reliable / THIQA:

Ali Ibn al-Madini,

al-Dhuhli,

al-Daraqutni,

al-Tabarani,

Ibn Hibban,

and Imam al-Hakim (1:526=1:707) who actually said THIQA MA’MUN, which is even stronger.


B. The following Ulema said about Shabib: “la ba’sa bihi”.

[Imam al-Lacknawi in al-Raf` wal-Takmil said this is identical with thiqa in its usage and is “all that is required in order to authenticate a narrator and render what he narrates authentic (sahih) and warrant its mention in the two Sahih’s” according to Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh.]

Abu Zur`ah,

Nasa’i,

Abu Hatim.

The foregoing relates to the authentication (ta‘dil) of Shabib.


SECTION 2:

Next, let us look at the made up false claim of the pseudo Salafis/wahabis that only Shabib’s narrations from his books which contained the hadith he narrated from Yunus are reliable.

We shall bring the actual statements of the Ulema they use to back up their illogical deductions.


‘Ali ibn al-Madini said about Shabib:


“He was utterly reliable (thiqah)
. He used to go to Egypt for trade. His book was authentic (sahih).

Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh points out in Raf‘ al-Minarah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah , pp. 99-100, that the accuracy ( ضبط ) of a narrator [which along with integrity (‘adàlah / عدالة ) establishes reliability] is of two kinds: accuracy in respect of his memory ( الحفظضبط), and accuracy in respect of what he has written down (dabt al-kitàbah).

‘Ali al-Madini
first declares that Shabib is utterly reliable (thiqah) without stating any condition. Thereafter, he reinforces that by stating that his book is also authentic without making his reliability conditional on being from that book.

Thus it blatantly clear that the ta’weel made by the Salafis from Ali al-Madini’s statement that only his narrations from his books are reliable is a lame illogical and unfounded inference clearly influenced by their desire to make the hadith weak at all costs!


Similarly this conclusion cannot be drawn from what Ibn Abi Hatim says about Shabib in al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil:

شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو

روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
Ibn Abi Hatim says regarding Shabib ibn Sa’id Abu Sa’id al Tamimi, father of Ahmad ibn Shabib bin sa’id al Basri. He narrated from Rauh ibn Qaasim and Younus ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn ‘amr. From him narrated Ibn Wahb and his son Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sai’d who said that i heard my father saying that and i asked him concerning it and he said he had with him the book of Yunus. He is righteous in hadith and there is no harm in him. Abdal rahman said Abu Zurah said shabib bin saeed – la ba’s bihi – there is no harm in him. Ibn wahb wrote from him in Egypt.


As you notice there is no stipulation that Shabib’s narration must be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih) This is a Bida’h by Albani and Wahabis

So yes, we accept that the Ulema have praised the book Shabib wrote from Yunus an Zuhri but to manipulate the statements of praise for this route mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ali al-Madini in order to disparage all of his other narrations from other narrators by way of memory or otherwise is a fallacy and not supported in their statements whatsoever.

All this goes to show how unreliable the Salafis are in terms of manipulating the texts of the Ulema of old.

Now, some mention of two scholars who did place a condition on Shabib’s reliability – namely that it not be Ibn Wahb who narrate from him:


Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil Fil-Du’afa:

[rough translation]


“He has a written copy of Hadith from Younus ibn Yazeed which is fine”

“When his son Ahmad narrates from him with the ahadeeth of Yunus then it is as if they were two different Shabibs, not the shabeeb who ibn wahb narrated disclaimed narrations from when Shabib was on a business trip in Egypt. Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib disclaimed narrations. Shabib may have transmitted mistakes from memory. I hope that he did not do this intentionally.”

Before we discuss this statement, let us remember in the background that large numbers of Ulema have clearly declared Shabib to be THIQA [utterly reliable].


Let us investigate what has been mentioned by Ibn Adi and what can truly be understood from it.

The claim that “Shabib may have transmitted mistakes from memory” is a speculation brought up by Ibn `Adi (4:31)

Ibn `Adi states that “Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib disclaimed narrations.”

However, according to Shaykh GF Haddad, the few examples he gives are good hadiths, not one of them is actually weak!

Nevertheless, let us accept Ibn Adi’s statement at face value.

The situation is clarified by the fact that Shabib went to Egypt on a business trip [as Ibn Adi mentioned] and not to actually report ahadith. Hence on this one occasion (of un-preparedness) there was the possibility of erroneously reporting some things (as he was after all fallible).

Bottom line: what is criticized is the transmission: Ibn Wahb –> Shabib

Ibn `Adi praises Ahmad’s narration of Shabib’s ahadeeth from Yunus.

But, as you may have noticed in the above notice from Ibn Adi there is no stipulation from him that Shabib’s narration must be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih).

He merely praises it – as does Ibn Abi Hatim’s in Al-Jarh Wa Al-Ta’dil and Ali al-Madani as shown above.

This, of course, does not mean that if Shabib were to narrate from anyone else it would not be accepted.

Anyone who claims as such is making an unfounded ta’wil based on his hawwa!


If Ibn Adi’s statement is taken literally,
then this is all that we can gain from it:

1– The narration of Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus is excellent

2- What Ibn Wahb reported from Shabib in Egypt is not accepted, and in it are mistakes

3- There is nothing preventing the narrations that don’t fall under the conditions referred to in #1 and #2 from being sahih.

Another scholar whose statements are misinterpreted and manipulated by the psuedo Salafis is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
Salafis often mention that Ibn Hajar writes about Shabib, in his Muqaddimah: “al-Bukhari narrated some ahadith from him via his son, which he narrated from Yunus. And he never narrated from him anything from anyone other than Yunus…” (1/429)

This point is somehow meant to support a claim that Shabib’s narrations are only acceptable to Ibn Hajar if it fulfills the chain Ahmad – Shabib – Yunus.

This is, of course, nonsense!

We have already mentioned that yes, this chain is impeccable – but no, there is no evidence in this statement that Shabib’s narrations from other than Yunus are not acceptable. We accept that Imam Bukhari only made use of this chain but there are thousands of sahih Hadith with chains that the Imam did not use – does it make them weak? This is stupidity of Wahabis by which they try to claim that all other Sahih hadiths become weak , This is infact a Bidah of Wahabis which wasn’t supported by Imam Bukhari [rah] even

Ibn Hajar’s
final word on Shabib, is found in al-Taqrib where he [like Ibn Adi] questions the narrations of Ibn Wahb but clearly does not mention any condition that his narrations be from Yunus alone.

He says:

شبيب ابن سعيد التميمي الحبطي بفتح المهملة والموحدة البصري أبو سعيد لا بأس بحديثه من رواية ابنه أحمد عنه لا من رواية ابن وهب من صغار الثامنة مات سنة ست وثمانين خ خد س


“There is no harm [la ba’s] in the narration of his son [Ahmad ibn Shabib] from him,
unlike that of Ibn Wahb.”

So again, this further strengthens the chain of Imam Bayhaqi in which Ahmad ibn Shabib is narrating from his father!


Conclusion:

1) Many of the Ulema gave Shabeeb general tawtheeq.

So, for example, Imam al-Tabarani considered him Thiqa and did not lay any conditions on his reliablity – hence he considered even his own chain containing Ibn Wahb narrating from Shabib to be Sahih!

2) The classical scholars/Ulema have not laid any condition that Shabib’s narration only be acceptable if they are from Yunus.

Moreover, Shabib was from Basra, as was Rawh bin Al-Qasim (who he reports this hadith from). This was an advantage for Shabib, as there is an added strength to the chain of a local narrating from a local.

This was the case with Malik too who made an effort to report almost solely from Madinian people, which is one of the reasons why his narrations were so acceptable.

3) Some Ulema did question the narrations of Ibn Wahb from Shabib. So, according to these Ulema the chain of Imam al-Tabarani is problematic.

BUT, the chain from al-Dalail an-Nabuwah does not contain Ibn Wahb! So, Alhamdulillah, no problem there!

4) A further condition was mentioned by some such as Ibn Hajar that Ahmad ibn Shabib narrate from his father [Shabib]. Again, this condition is met in the version from Dalail al-Nubuwwa!

Thus it is all crystal clear – the isnad of the Hadith of the man in Need as cited by Bayhaqi in Dalail al-Nubuwwa is AUTHENTIC.

More Replies to Albani Objection on Hadith # 3 [ ONE in Above post ]The following is a concise refutation of a recent dissertation by the “Salafi” shaykh Albani entitled “Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings” currently distributed in translation among English-speaking Muslims by his supporters in order to replace with “Salafi” ideology the understanding of Ahl al-Sunna regarding tawassul.[M. Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings, trans. Dawud Burbank (Birmingham: al-Hidaayah, 1995)]It will be seen with Allah’s permission that the commentary of Albani is a proof against “Salafis” and all those who follow new teachings instead of clinging to the sawad al-a`zam or massive majority of scholars. Their pretext that “there is disagreement about tawassul” and that “we follow proof not scholars” is a sham. There is no disagreement about tawassul among Ahl al-Sunna except the dissent of some lone voices in the matter, such as Ibn Taymiyya who declared travel undertaken to visit the Prophet an act of disobedience: this is not disagreement but shudhudh or dissent, as classified by Imam Ahmad in speaking of the disagreement of the lone scholar with the consensus. There seems to be little doubt that Albani has achieved the same dubious distinction of dissenting with one and all, as he proudly admits in the following lines of his book, especially the second sentence which we have emphasized:

Quote:

Albani Says

“Imaam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imaam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious. [Note that he omits to mention Imam Malik and Imam Shafi`i as permitting tawassul also.] However we [i.e. Albani and his party], as is the case in all matters where there is disagreement, follow whatever is supported by the proof whatever that is, without blindly sticking to the opinions of men.”
[al-Albani, At-Tawassul p. 38]


Reply

The proofs that Albani alone purports to see — against what the majority understand — are characteristic of the “Wahabis , pseudo Salafi” method. As the scholars who debate them well know, the “Wahabis , pseudo Salafi” method consists in a lack of method in and a non-recognition of any of the established principles of the derivation of rulings from the primary sources other than what fits the purpose of their position at the time. Scholars of Ahl al-Sunna may traditionally familiarize themselves with the fiqh and the usul of other than their own school, but this is impossible to do with the “Wahabis , pseudo Salafis,” because they completely lack any type of method and shift constantly from one position to another depending on the purpose at hand. Albani has achieved particular notoriety for his contamination of the field of hadith scholarship with this systematic unaccountability and free-lance style.

As we will see in the section on salat in the present work, Albani had previously suggested altering the prayer by changing the words as-salamu `alayka ayyuha al-nabi to as-salamu `ala al-nabi in the tashahhud whereas the Prophet explicitly said, as related in Bukhari and Muslim: “Pray as you see me pray,” and: “Who innovates something in this matter of ours (meaning religion), it is radd (rejected).” And here is Albani now trying to alter the tawassul through the Prophet which is valid for all and for all times, and reduce it to a one-time du`a of the Prophet valid only for a single man in the Prophet’s time. But, as the Prophet said: “There is no preventing what Allah has given, and there is no avoidance of what He has decreed.”[Stated in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Ahmad.]

Quote:

1. ALBANI’S TAMPERING WITH THE HADITH ITSELF
It is reported by Ahmad and others with an authentic chain of narration from Uthmaan bin Haneef [sic] “that a blind man came to the Prophet (SAW) and said, ‘supplicate to Allaah that He should cure me.’ So he (SAW) said, ‘if you wish I will supplicate for you and if you wish I will delay that for that is better (and in a narration: and if you wish have patience and that is better for you).’ So he said, ‘supplicate to Him.’ So he (SAW) ordered him to make wudoo, and to make wudoo well, and to pray two rak’ahs and to supplicate with this du’aa, ‘O Allaah I ask you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy, O Muhammad I have turned by means of you (i.e. your du`aa) [sic] to my Lord in this need of mine, so that it may be fulfilled for me, O Allaah accept him as supplicant on my behalf, and accept my supplication for him (to be accepted for me) [sic].’ He said, ‘So the man did it and he was cured.’”[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 68]


REPLY And analysis

1. Albani or his translator err on the narrator’s name. This is the Companion `Uthman ibn Hunayf, not Haneef, and his full name is Abu `Amr `Uthman ibn Hunayf ibn Wahb of Aws, may Allah be well pleased with him.[67]

2. The wording of the hadith is: “O Muhammad I have turned with you (bika) to my Lord.” It is not “O Muhammad I have turned by means of your du`a (bi du`a’ika) to my Lord.” We shall see that this blatant interpolation of another term in lieu of the explicit wording of the hadith is central to Albani’s attempt to reword this hadith of the Prophet (we have already transcribed the complete and correct translation of this hadith above, in the section entitled SEEKING MEANS THROUGH THE PROPHET).

3. The blind man’s final words are not “and accept my supplication for him” nor could they be, since he is not praying for the Prophet but for himself. He is imploring Allah to help him by means of the Prophet’s intercession, not by means of his own, and he is practicing Islam, not egalitarianism!

The original Arabic is (in one of two versions in Ahmad):
wa tashaffa`ni fihi which must be translated:and join me to him in supplicating You (i.e. join my supplication to his),” as he is well aware that the likelihood of his being heard increases exponentially if it is linked to the Prophet’s audience.

One may excuse the false suggestion that the man not only prays for the Prophet’s intercession for him but also for his own interceding for the Prophet as stemming from a bad translation. However, the poor translation is just as deliberate as the misrendering of “O Muhammad I have turned by means of your du`a to my Lord,” since Albani, as we shall see, tries to adduce the supposed du`a of the blind man on behalf of the Prophet as additional evidence to support his fake idea that the tawassul in the hadith is by means of du`a and not by means of the person of the Prophet.

Furthermore the words of the blind man’s final request “and join me to him in supplicating Youare not in all versions. They are not found in Ahmad’s first version out of two, nor in Tirmidhi’s version, nor in Ibn Majah’s version, nor in Nasa’i’s version, nor in the version retained by Imam Nawawi in his Adhkar [Nawawi, al-Adhkar (Ta’if: Maktabat al-mu’ayyad, 1408/1988) p. 239 #562.][/B

] Why then does Albani cite it as the primary text instead of assigning it parenthetical mention, as he does with the phrase: “(and in a narration: and if you wish have patience and that is better for you)”? Because, as we have said, he wants to make the entire hadith revolve around tawassul through the du`a of the Prophet as opposed to his person, and he wants to adduce the blind man’s own supposed tawassul through his own du`a as additional evidence of his claim, as we see below.

Quote:

2. ALBANI’S DISSENT AND CONTEMPT FOR THE SCHOLARS

The opponents hold that this hadeeth shows that it is permissible to make tawassul in du’aa by the status of the Prophet (SAW) or other pious people, since the Prophet (SAW) taught the blind man to use him as a means of nearness in his du’aa, and the blind man did that and his sight was restored.[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 69 ]

Reply and Analysis
Observe how he says “the opponents,”although it is he who has brought opposition to something established in Islam, and he invented that it is not through the Prophet’s sacred status (hurmat) or person (dhaat) but through his du`a that tawassul is permissible, in open contradiction to the understanding of the Salaf such as Mujahid, Imam Malik Who ] said to al-Mansur inside the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina: “Face him [the Prophet] and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi).”References for above statement of Imam Malik [rah][/B]► It is cited by al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) with a sound (sahih) chain,► and also cited by al-Samhudi in Khulasat al-Wafa, Subki in Shifa’ al-siqam, Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya,►Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik► and Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat al-zuwwar.► See also Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-munki p. 244.

► Ibn Jama`a says in Hidayat al-salik (3:1381): “It is related by the two hafiz Ibn Bashkuwal and al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa’ after him, and no attention is paid to the words of those who claim that it is forged purely on the basis of his idle desires.

Imam al-Shafi`i [rah] Said
i in his Diwan declared his reliance on tawassul through the Prophet’s family, and he also made tawassul through Imam Abu Hanifa,

[as related by al-Haytami respectively in al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqa in many places and al-Khayrat al-hisan p. 63].

And

Imam Ahmad in
reported by `Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi in his book al-insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456). [See above]

Ibrahim al-Harbi,
and al-Shawkani as we have already seen, and that of Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawawi, Ibn al-Humam, and Ibn al-Qayyim as we see below Or Too see their views in Detail ( Click Here )

Quote:
Then Albani said As for us, than [sic] we hold that the hadeeth has no proof for them concerning this form of tawassul about which there is disagreement, which is seeking nearness by means of his person. Rather it is a further proof for the third type of lawful and prescribed tawassul which we have spoken of previously [i.e. through the du’aa of another person], since the tawassul of the blind man was through means of his (SAW) du’aa, and the proofs for what we say are many being contained in the hadeeth itself, most importantly:[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 69]


Reply and Analysis

Rather, Muslims believe as Ibn al-Jawzi said that it is through the Prophet’s person and status and not only through his du`a that one makes tawassul, as is clear from this excerpt from his chapter concerning the Prophet’s superiority over the other Prophets in his book al-Wafa:
Part of the exposition of his superiority to other Prophets

is the fact that Adam asked his Lord through the sacred status

(hurma) of Muhammad that He relent towards him,

as we havealready mentioned

[Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Wafa (Beirut: dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1408/1988), p. 365]

The importance of this remark does not lie in the veracity of the hadith, which is a separate discussion and Ibn al-Jawzi clearly considers it authenticbut in the wording of Ibn al-Jawzi whereby tawassul is correct as made through the status of the Prophet. This is enough of an indication that Ibn al-Jawzi’s `aqida or doctrine concerning tawassul fully contradicts that of Albani and his followers. It comes down to deciding who is closer to following the Sunna: the Imams, huffaz and historians on the one hand — or the polemicist and scholar of books? al-hamdu lillah, this is no dilemma at all.

Indeed the position of Albani is not founded upon the explicit words of the hadith, but upon their figurative interpretation.

The hadith clearly says: bi nabiyyika i.e. with/by means of/through Your Prophet. Even a child of seven years old can see that this does not mean “through the du`a of your Prophet.” Nor does he provide any justification for his recourse to figurative interpretation in a matter where the literal meaning is clear and true.

Quote:

Albani Said

1) The reason the blind man came to the Prophet (SAW) was for him to make supplication (du’aa) for him, as he said, ‘Supplicate Allaah that He should cure me.’ So he sought to use his (SAW) du’aa as a means of nearness to Allaah, the Most High, since he knew that his (SAW) supplication was more likely to be accepted by Allaah than the du’aa of others, and if the intention of the blind man was to seek nearness to Allaah by means of the Prophet’s (SAW) person or status or his right, then he would have had no need to go to the Prophet (SAW), or to ask him to make du’aa for him, rather he would have sat in his house, and supplicated to his Lord saying, for example, ‘O Allaah I ask You by the status of your Prophet and his station with You, that You cure me and enable me to see.’But that is not what he did. Why? because he was an Arab and knew very well the meaning of ‘tawassul’ in the Arabic Language, and knew that it was not a word said by a person with a need, mentioning the name of a person as an intermediary, rather it had to include coming to one whom he believed to be pious and have knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and ask him to make du’aa for him.[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 69]

This argument is entirely speculative and the Shari`a is not derived from speculation. The facts are clear. The ruling is not derived only from the fact that the blind man came to the Prophet but from the entirety of the hadith. The blind man came asking for the Prophet’s du`a, and the Prophet subsequently taught him a form of du`a that he should make after performing wudu’ and praying two rak`at. In the latter du`a the Prophet further taught him to make tawassul with certain clear and explicit words. These same words were used by the man in need in the time of sayyidina `Uthman ibn `Affan, after the time of the Prophet. Was the man in need not also an Arab who knew very well the meaning of ‘tawassul’ in the Arabic Language?

For the hadiths of Tawassal and proofs
( Click Here )

Were Imam Ahmad, Shawkani, and Ibn al-Jawzi not also Arabs who knew very well the meaning of ‘tawassul’ in the Arabic Language
?

What about Imam Nawawi and Ibn al-Humam, who are cited below as instructing every visitor to the Prophet in Madina to seek him as a means in tawassul – are they not Arabs who knew very well the meaning of ‘tawassul’ in the Arabic Language? All these major scholars did not seem to experience the same problem as Albani with the language of tawassul, nor with the fact that tawassul is said by a person in need mentioning the name of another person as intermediary!

Quote:

Then Albani Said
2) The Prophet (SAW) promised that he would make du’aa for him, after advising him of what would be better for him, and this was his (SAW) saying, ‘If you wish I will supplicate for you, and if you have patience that is better for you.’ And this second matter is what he (SAW) indicated in the hadeeth which he narrated from His Lord, the blessed and Most High, that He said, ‘when I afflict My servant in his two beloved ones, that is his eyes, and he has patience, then I give him Paradise in place of them.’ [Reported by al-Bukhaaree (transl. 7/377/no.557) from Anas, quoted in as-Saheehah (2010)]3) The blind man’s insistence that he (SAW) should supplicate for him, as he said, ‘Supplicate to Him.’ Which means that the Messenger (SAW) definitely did make du’aa for him, since he (SAW) was the best at fulfilling a promise and he had already promised to make du’aa for him if he wished as has preceded, and he wanted du’aa from him, and so the point is established. Also the Prophet (SAW), out of his mercy and desire that Allaah, the Most High, should answer his du’aa for him, guided the blind man to using the second type of lawful and prescribed tawassul, which is tawassul by means of righteous actions, in order to combine the different types of good.So he ordered him to make wudoo, and to pray two rak’ahs, and then to make du’aa for himself…[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 70]


Reply and Analysis

… in the words taught to him by the Prophet, which consist verbatim in asking Allah through the Prophet himself and his status. That is the essence of the du`a taught by the Prophet, and of the entire hadith.

… and these are acts of obedience to Allaah, the One free of all blemish or defect, and the Most High, which he offered along with the du’aa of the Prophet (SAW) on his behalf, and this falls under Allaah, the Most High’s Saying: ‘Seek means of approach (waseelah) to Him’ (Quran 5:35) as has preceded.The Messenger (SAW) did not suffice with making du’aa for the blind man, as he had promised, he also gave him an action to perform which involved obedience to Allaah, the One free of all blemish and defect, the Most High, and drawing near to Him, so that the affair would be complete from all angles, and nearer to acceptance and being pleasing to Allaah, the One free of all blemish and imperfections, and the Most High, therefore the whole event revolved around du’aa, as is clear and contains nothing of what they mention.

Rather, the end does confirm that the essence of this du`a revolves around the Prophet’s intercession, and that is what making tawassul through him means. Shaykh al-Ghumari is right when he says that the Prophet taught the du`a of tawassul as an answer to the blind man’s request for du`a, since the du`a of tawassul is the main lesson of this hadith and the means through which Allah fulfills the Prophet’s own du`a and returned the blind man’s sight to him. Nor does the fact that the blind man asked the Prophet to make du`a for him preclude the Prophet in any way or form from teaching him that du`a — and through him all Muslims — in addition to responding to his specific request, for the Prophet is by essence the Teacher and Purifier of the Community:
Truly Allah was gracious to the believers when He raised up among them a Messenger from themselves, to recite to them His signs and to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though before they were in manifest error. (3:164)

To insist that the Prophet could not have been acting didactically in a general way but only making the du`a for the blind man alone simply because that is all that the blind man wanted, is to act like the man who kept repeating to the Prophet: “Teach me something (about Islam)!” not realizing that the Prophet’s answer: “Do not get angry”[75] constituted a universal Islamic teaching of the highest order. Yet this is what Albani insists, in order to reduce the hadith to a one-time occurrence that bears no significance to the Umma at large, and in order to annihilate its availability to all Muslims as a universal and enduring du`a of tawassul.

The great characteristic of Islam is that the overwhelming part if not all of the Prophet’s guidance, his teachings, and his miracles are enduring for all time, the greatest being the Glorious Qur’an, and not limited to the time of the Companions or to some individuals among them! To believe otherwise is to rob Islam of its primacy as the Religion that pleases Allah and to place it on a par with Christianity and Judaism as an abrogated religion, and we seek refuge in Allah from such aberrant suggestions.

Quote:

AlbANI SAID
Then he [Ghumari] says, ‘Even if we admit that the Prophet (SAW) made du’aa for the blind man, then that does not prevent those hadeeth from being generalised to include others.’I say: This is clear error, since no one prevents the hadeeth from applying to other then [sic] the blind man, from those whom the Prophet (SAW) made du’aa for. However since du’aa from him (SAW) after he left to join the highest company is something that those seeking tawassul for all various needs and desires do not know about, and also they themselves do not seek tawassul by his (SAW) du’aa after his death, therefore the ruling is different, and this admission of al-Ghumaaree is a proof against him.[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 71-72]


Reply

Observe the aberration of Albani’s declaration that “du’aa from him (SAW) after he left to join the highest company is something that those seeking tawassul for all various needs and desires do not know about,” when it is established in the authentic hadith that the Prophet continually makes du`a and asks forgiveness for his Umma and makes tahmid (al-hamdu lillah) even in the grave:

My life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me (in my grave) and if I see goodness I will praise Allah, and if see other than that I will ask forgiveness of Him for you

References of This hadiths

►Haythamī transmitted it in Majma‘-uz-zawā’id (9:24) and said that that tradition had been reported by Bazzār (in his Musnad) and its sub-narrators are all of sahīh (sound) hadith.

►Irāqī has confirmed the soundness of its transmission in his book Tarh-ut-tathrīb fī sharh-it-taqrīb (3:297).

►Ibn Sa‘d has recorded it in at-Tabaqāt-ul-kubrā (2:194).

►Qādī ‘Iyād has inscribed this tradition in ash-Shifā (1:19);

►and Suyūtī, recording it in al-Khasā’is-ul-kubrā (2:281)

► Manāhil-us-sifā fī takhrīj ahādīth ash-Shifā (p.3), has commented that Ibn Abū Usāmah in his Musnad has reproduced it through Bakr bin ‘Abdullāh Muzanī and Bazzār in his Musnad who have relied on its narration by ‘Abdullāh bin Mas‘ūd with a sound chain of transmission

►It has been endorsed by Khafâjî and Mullâ ‘Alî Qârî in their commentaries on ash-Shifâ, i.e. Nasîm-ur-riyâd (1:102) and Sharh ash-Shifâ (1:36) respectively.

►Hadith-scholar Ibn-ul-Jawzî has reproduced it in al-Wafâ bi-ahwâl-il-mustafâ (2:809-10) from Bakr bin ‘Abdullâh and Anas bin Mâlik.

► Subkî has copied this tradition in Shifâ’-us-siqâm fî ziyârat khayr-il-anâm (p.34) from Bakr bin ‘Abdullâh Muzanî,

►Ibn ‘Abd-ul-Hâdî in as-Sârim-ul-munkî (p.266-7) has authenticated its veracity.

►Bazzâr’s tradition has also been recorded by Ibn Kathîr in al-Bidâyah wan-nihâyah (4:257).

►Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalânî narrated it through Bakr bin ‘Abdullâh Muzanî in al-Matâlib-ul-‘âliyah (4:22-3#3853).

►‘Alâ’-ud-Dîn ‘Alî copied Ibn Sa‘d’s tradition in Kanz-ul-‘ummâl (11:407#31903) and from Hârith (#31904)

►Nabhânî related it in Hujjatullâh ‘alal-‘âlamîn fî mu‘jazât sayyid-il-mursalîn (p.713).

Observe also how Albani boldly claims: “they themselves do not seek tawassul by his (SAW) du’aa after his death” — this is clear and manifest error, and may Allah save us from such. As we have shown in many places already, the Companions sought tawassul, tabarruk, istisqa, and istishfa` both through his person and through his du`a after his death, in which he stands the same as he stands in his life in the world in relation to Allah, i.e. praying and making du`a for his Community.

This is another clear proof against misguidance, and it is confirmed by Malik al-Dar’s narration of the Companion Bilal Ibn al-Harith’s request to the Prophet that he make istisqa’
(prayer and du`a for rain) on behalf of his Community. We have already cited this hadith which Ibn Hajar said “Ibn Abi Shayba related with a sound chain from the narration of Abu Salih al-Saman from Malik al-Dar who was `Umar’s treasurer”:

The people suffered from drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished”…We will note here that in his obstinacy in asserting that the Companions did not seek tawassul by the Prophet’s du`a after his death Albani went far afield trying to disprove the authenticity of this hadith:

Quote:

Albani said
We do not accept that this story is authentic since the reliability and precision of Maalik al-Daar is not known, and these are the two principle [sic] conditions necessary for the authenticity of any narration, as is affirmed in the science of hadeeth. Ibn Abee Haatim mentions him in al-Jarh wat-ta’deel (4/1/213) and does not mention anyone who narrates from him except Aboo Saalih. So this indicates that he is unknown, and this is further emphasized by the fact that Ibn Abee Haatim himself, who is well known for his memorisation and wide knowledge, did not quote anyone who declared him reliable, so he remains unknown. Then this does not contradict the saying of al-Haafidh: “… with an authentic chain of narration, from the narration of Aboo Saalih as-Saman…” since we say: It is not declaration that all of the chain of narration is authentic (saheeh), rather only that it is so up to Aboo Saalih. If that were not the case then he would not have started mentioning the chain of narration from Aboo Saalih. Rather he would have begun: “From Malik ad-Daar… and its chain of narration is authentic.” But he said it in the way that he did to draw attention to the fact that there was something requiring investigation in it. The scholars say this for various reasons. From these reasons is that they may not have been able to find a biography for some narrator(s) and therefore they would not permit themselves to pass a ruling on the whole chain of narration…[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 120]

1. The above is disproved by Ibn Sa`d’s (d. 230) biographical notice on Malik al-Dar in his Tabaqat:

Malik al-Dar: `Umar ibn al-Khattab’s freedman. He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar. He was known.[77]

2. It is further disproved by the hafiz al-Khalili’s (d. 445) notice on Malik al-Dar in his Kitab al-irshad fi ma`rifat `ulama’ al-hadith:

Malik al-Dar: muttafaq `alayh athna `alayhi al-tabi`un – He is agreed upon (as trustworthy), the Successors have approved highly of him

References :

[Abu Ya`la al-Khalil ibn `Abd Allah al-Khalili al-Qazwini, Kitab al-irshad fi ma`rifat `ulama’ al-hadith, ed. Muhammad Said ibn Umar Idris, 1st ed., 3 vols. (Riyad : Maktabat al-Rushd, 1989), as quoted in `Abd Allah al-Ghumari, Irgham al-mubtadi` al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi, ed. Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf, 2nd ed. (`Amman: Dar al-imam al-Nawawi, 1412/1992) p. 9.]

3
. It is further disproved by Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani’s biographical notice on Malik al-Dar in his al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-sahaba:

Malik ibn `Iyad: `Umar’s freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, Mu`adh, and Abu `Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and his (Malik’s) two sons `Awn and `Abd Allah…

Bukhari in his Tarikh narrated through Abu Salih Dhakwan from Malik al-Dar
that `Umar said during the period of drought: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!” Ibn Abi Khaythama also narrated it in those words but in a longer hadith:

The people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah for rain for your Community.” The Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go, see `Umar and tell him: You will be watered, and: You must put your nose to the grindstone (`alayk al-kaffayn)!” (The man went and told `Umar.) Then `Umar wept and exclaimed: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”

We have also narrated in the Fawa’id of Dawud ibn `Amr and al-Dabbi compiled by al-Baghawi in the narration of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa`id ibn Yarbu` al-Makhzumi from Malik al-Dar: he said: “`Umar ibn al-Khattab summoned me one day. He had with him a purse of gold containing four hundred dinars. He said: “Take this to Abu `Ubayda,” and he mentioned the rest of the story.

Ibn Sa`d mentioned him (Malik al-Dar) in the first layer of the Successors among the people of Madina and said: “He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, and he was known.” Abu `Ubayda said of him: “`Umar put him in charge of the dependents in his household. When `Uthman succeeded him, he put him in charge of financial allotments and he was then named Malik of the House.”

Isma`il al-Qadi related from `Ali ibn al-Madini: “Malik al-Dar was `Umar’s treasurer.”

[Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (Calcutta 1853 ed.) 6:164 #8350.]

4. It is further disproved by Hasan al-Saqqaf’s rebuttal of Albani’s discourse and entire method on this hadith in Saqqaf’s preface to `Abd Allah al-Ghumari’s refutation of Albani entitled Irgham al-mubtadi` al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi (The compulsion of the ignorant innovator with the permissibility of seeking means with the Prophet):

Albani has declared this sound hadith weak upon pretexts frailer than a cobweb in his Tawassul.
He has claimed that Malik al-Dar is unknown (majhul) and has reproduced only his biographical notice from Ibn Abi Hatim’s Kitab al-jarh wa al-ta`dil in order to give his readers the impression that only one man has narrated from Malik al-Dar, and that is Abu Salih al-Saman. And it has been decided by Albani on the basis of what he reproduces from one of the scholars that a man remains “unknown” until two or more narrate from him. In order to help his cause he mentioned that al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami did not know Malik al-Dar, that he is therefore unknown, and that a chain of transmission containing an unknown is unsound. Then he began to brag saying: “This is a critical piece of information which none will know but those who have practiced this science.” As for us we say to him: Rather this is deliberate concealment (tadlis) and deceit and treachery which none commits except one whose heart is filled with spite and enmity against the Sunna and Tawhid and its people…

Now, if al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami declared that they did not know him, we say to the searcher for truth: This means that they did not declare him either trustworthy or unreliable, because they do not know him. However, there are those who do know him, such as Ibn Sa`d, and Bukhari, and `Ali ibn al-Madini, and Ibn Hibban, and al-hafiz Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, and others! Which of the two assessments, O Albani, is retained: that of those who know him, or that of those who don’t?!

It is a wonder that Albani approves the statement of those who don’t know Malik al-Dar’s case, selects it, and prefers it to the statements of those who do know it, which he conceals and with which he dislikes that anyone be acquainted.

What I will cite from the sayings of the Imams among the masters of hadith who have recognized Malik al-Dar as reliable is enough to confirm what al-Sayyid `Abd Allah al-Ghumari and other hadith scholars as well as some of those who work with hadith have said: namely, that Albani knows the correct facts in many matters but … is not to be relied upon for (assessing) a single hadith. This is the explicit position of many of the scholars such as the three muhaddiths al-Sayyid Ahmad al-Ghumari, al-Sayyid `Abd Allah al-Ghumari, and al-Sayyid `Abd al-`Aziz; the shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda; the muhaddith of India and Pakistan Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami; Shaykh Isma`il al-Ansari; Shaykh Muhammad `Awwama; Shaykh Mahmud Sa`id; Shaykh Shu`ayb Arna’ut; and tens of others among the experts in this field and those that deal with it. The People of Hadith therefore witness that that man’s word is not relied upon in the authentication and weakening of hadith because he authenticates and weakens according to whim and mood, not scientific rules, and whoever examines his sayings and writings can verify this.

A REFUTATION OF ALBANI FROM IMAM NAWAWI AND IMAM IBN AL-HUMAM AL-HANAFI

A further proof that tawassul through the Prophet after his time is universally recognized and encouraged in the Shari`a is Imam Nawawi’s description of the etiquette of visiting the grave of the Prophet after the fulfillment of the Pilgrimage in the Book of Hajj in the Adhkar, where he says:

[After giving salam to the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and `Umar] Then he [the visitor] returns to his initial station opposite the Prophet’s face, and he uses the Prophet as his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala)… and he avails himself of this noble spot, and glorifies and praises and magnifies Allah and invokes blessings on His Messenger. Let him do all that abundantly

[Nawawi, al-Adhkar (Ta’if ed.) p. 262]

Nawawi [rah] similarly says in the part devoted to visiting the Prophet in his book on Pilgrimage entitled al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj:
[The visitor stands and greets the Prophet, then he moves to greet Abu Bakr and `Umar] Then he returns to his original position, directly in front of Allah’s Messenger, and he uses the Prophet as his means in his innermost self (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala) and one of the best things that he can say is what has been narrated by our colleagues on al-`Utbi’s authority, and they admired what he said:

As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgive-ness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful” (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord…”

[Nawawi, al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj (Damascus: Dar ibn Khaldun, n.d.) p. 144. See also a similar passage in Nawawi’s Majmu` (8:212f.)]


Similarly the Hanafi faqih Kamal al-Din ibn al-Humam said in Fath al-qadir (2:337), book of hajj, chapter on visiting the Prophet:

wa yas’alu allaha hajatahu mutawassilan ilallah bi hadrati nabiyyihi thumma qala yas’alu al-nabiyya sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam al-shafa`ata fa yaqulu ya rasulallah as’aluka al-shafa`ata ya rasulallah atawassalu bika ilallah

Then let him ask Allah for his need, using Allah’s Prophet as his means to Allah; (then he said): Let him ask the Prophet for his intercession and say: O Messenger of Allah, I am asking you for your intercession; O Messenger of Allah, I am using you as my means to Allah.

It cannot be clearer that Albani is therefore innovating in:a) claiming that tawassul is no longer made by asking for the Prophet’s du`a after he left dunya
;b) claiming that tawassul is not made through the Prophet’s person or status.

Quote:

Albani Said

That in the du’aa which Allaahs Messenger (SAW) taught him to say occurs, ‘O Allaah accept him as a supplicant [intercessor] for me’, and it is impossible to take this to mean tawassul by his (SAW) person, or his status, or his right, since the meaning is, ‘O Allaah accept his (SAW) supplication for You to restore my sight.’[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]


The complete words of the du`a are as follows:
“O Allah I ask you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad I turn by means of you to my Lord in this need of mine, so that it may be fulfilled for me, O Allah make him my intercessor (shaffi`hu fiyya).”

Therefore the du`a contains the following steps:

Call and request to Allah stating that one uses the Prophet as means;- Call to the Prophet stating that one uses him as means to Allah;

Call and request to Allah to make the Prophet one’s intercessor.

This proves:

– that one may ask for the Prophet’s intercession in this life;

– that one takes for granted that the Prophet’s intercession is accepted;- that one does not take for granted that his intercession is granted;

– and that such intercession is “by means of him,” period.

Quote:

Albani said

And shafaa’ah [the arabic word used in the hadeeth] in the language means: du’aa [supplication], and this is what is meant for the Shafaa’ah which is established for him (SAW) and for the other Prophets and the pious on the Day of Ressurrection.[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]


Neither is the hadith taking place on the Day of Resurrection, nor is this hadith primarily about the Prophet’s blessed shafa`a, which is explained in countless other ayats and ahadith,
but about tawassul through the Prophet, which is the modality and language of asking for his shafa`a here and now. Albani is trying to make one and the same thing of tawassul and shafa`a, and furthermore he is trying to make the language say other than what it states explicitly.

Quote:
Albani than SaysAnd this shows that shafaa’ah is more particular then du’aa since it will only occur if there are two people seeking a matter, so that one of them is a supplicant for the other, as opposed to a single person seeking something who does not have anyone else to supplicate for him.In Lisaan ul-Arab it says, ‘shafaa’ah [intercession] is the intercessor’s speaking to a king about a need which he is requesting for someone else, and the intercessor is the one seeking something for someone else, through whom he intercedes to attain what is desired…’ So it is established by this means also that the tawassulof the blind man wa through his (SAW) du’aa and not his person.
[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

Again: The hadith is about the asking for the intercession, not the intercession itself. Clearly, the one hoping intercession needs to ask, and the reason he is asking is because of the intercessor’s status. Is this not obvious?

The above impossibility seems axiomatic to Albani perhaps, but to others it is clear that the statement quoted also refers to the phrase: “I ask you and turn to you by means of your Prophet” and so the full meaning is: “Accept my du`a and accept the request that I may make this du`a to you by means of him.” As much as Albani tries to conceal this basic meaning he cannot.

__________________
HADITH NUMBER 4: Intercession of Adam [aleh islam] through Prophet Muhammad [salehalawaalihi wasalam]
[SIZE=4]No the hadith is not fabricated, rather it is Sahih and authenticated by many Imams, on top of that It has come with a different “JAYYID” chain which corraborates the Sanad and Matn together making it even more stronger. Let me first show you proof on the hadith of Adam (a.s) Tawassul which is present in Mustadrak al Hakim.حدّثنا أبو سعيد عمرو بن محمد بن منصور العدل ، ثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي ، ثنا أبو
الحارث عبد الله بن مسلم الفهري ، ثنا إسماعيل بن مسلمة ، أنبأ عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم ، عن أبيه، عن جدّه، عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله : «لَمّا اقْتَرَفَ آدَمُ الْخَطِيئَةَ قالَ: يا رَبّ أَسْأَلُكَ بِحَقّ مُحَمَّدٍ لما غَفَرْتَ لِي، فَقالَ الله: يا آدَمُ وَكَيْفَ عَرَفْتَ مُحَمّداً وَلَمْ أَخْلُقْهُ؟ قالَ: يا رَبّ لأَنَّكَ لَمّا خَلَقْتَنِي بِيَدِكَ وَنَفَخْتَ فِيَّ مِنْ روحِكَ رَفَعْتُ رَأْسِي فَرَأَيْتُ على قوائِمِ الْعَرْشِ مَكْتوباً لا إِلهَ إِلا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسولُ الله، فَعَلِمْتُ أَنَّكَ لَمْ تُضِفْ إِلى اسْمِكَ إِلا أَحَبَّ الْخَلْقِ إِلَيْكَ، فقالَ الله: صَدَقْتَ يا آدَمُ إِنَّهُ لأَحَبُّ الْخَلْقِ إِلَيَّ ادْعُني بِحَقِّهِ فَقَدْ غَفَرْتُ لَكَ وَلَوْلا مُحَمَّدٌ ما خَلَقْتُكَ . هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد وهو أول حديث ذكرته لعبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم في هذا الكتاب
Translation: Narrated `Umar: The Prophet said: “When Adam committed his mistake he said: O my Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Muhammad. Allah said: O Adam, and how do you know about Muhammad whom I have not yet created? Adam replied, O my Lord, after You created me with your hand and breathed into me of Your Spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne: “LA ILAHA ILLALLAH MUHAMMADUR RASULULLAH” I understood that You would not place next to Your Name but the Most Beloved One of Your creation. Allah said: O Adam, I have forgiven you, and were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you.”► Al-Hakim narrated it in al-Mustadrak al Sahihayn (Volume No. 2, Page No. 651, Hadith No. 4228)
The outstanding authenticationImam al Hakim after narrating it said:هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد وهو أول حديث ذكرته لعبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم في هذا الكتابTranslation: This hadith has “SAHIH CHAIN”and it is the first hadith that I have mentioned from Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam in this book [Mustadrak (2/651)]Imam al-Hakim (rah) was an outstanding Imam of hadith and he knew well that Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam is declared weak by other Imams, so why did he call this report as Sahih? The answer to this is that Imams do not only look at weakness of some narrator in hadith, they also look at Matn of hadith and see If it corresponds to other Sahih even Daeef ahadith, If the Matn is correct then they declare the hadith as Sahih. This is precisely why overwhelming scholars have declared this hadith as Sahih, here are few examples

(2) Sheikh ul Islam, Imam Taqi-ud as-Subki (rah) confirmed Imam al-Hakim’s authentication in his magnificent book ”Shifa’ us-siqam fee ziyarat=al khayr al-anam Page No. 134-135” although he knew well that some scholars had declared Abdur Rahman as weak.
(3) The magnificent Imam of Seerah and Hadith, Imam al-Qadhi Iyaadh (rah) narrated it under Chapter No. 3 of his Ash-Shifa in which he said: “This Chapter is about “SAHIH AND FAMOUS” narrations (الباب الثالث فيما ورد من صحيح الأخبار و مشهورها), and he says that Abu Muhammad al-Makki and Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi mention it; Qadi `Iyad says: “It is said that this hadith explains the verse: ‘And Adam received words from his Lord and He relented towards him’ (2:37)”; he continues to cite another very similar version through al-Ajurri (d. 360).(4) Imam Ibn Jawzi, who was one of the most strict scholars in Jirah wa Tadil, he also considers it sound (sahih) as he cites it in the first chapter of al-Wafa bi ahwal al-mustafa, in the introduction of which he says: “(In this book) I do not mix the sound hadith with the false,”
…although he knew of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd’s weakness as a narrator; he also mentions the version of Maysarat al-Fajr whereby the Prophet says: “When satan deceived Adam and Eve, they repented and sought intercession to Allah with my name”; Ibn al-Jawzi also says in the chapter concerning the Prophet’s superiority over the other Prophets in the same book: “Part of the exposition of his superiority to other Prophets is the fact that Adam asked his Lord through the sanctity (hurmat) of Muhammad that He relent towards him, as we have already mentioned.”
Note: The hadith from Maysira al Fajr (ra) will be mentioned later

(5) Last but not the least, the leading authority for Salafis and their sheikh ul Islam, even he had to accept this hadith as authentic. Ibn Taymiyya elsewhere quotes the other version through Maysara and says regarding it: “These two are like the elucidation (tafsir) of the authentic ahadith (فهذا الحديث يؤيد الذي قبله وهما كالتفسير للأحاديث الصحيحة‏.‏ ) [Ibn Taymiyyah in his Fatawa (2/150)]. The contemporary Meccan hadith scholar Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki said: “This indicates that Ibn Taymiyya found the hadith sound enough to be considered a witness for other narrations (salih li al-istishhad wa al-i`tibar), because the forged (al-mawdu`) and the false (al-batil) are not taken as witness by the people of hadith”
2nd Sahih Chain of Hadith This Hadith Of Prophet Adam’s (peace be Upon him) is Mention By Imam Hakim in his al-
.
Mustadrak Two Times One is Weak Because of ibn Aslam But he Also Narrated Same
.
With Diiferent Chain Which is Authentic
.
Imam Hakim (rah) also narrates:

حدّثنا علي بن حمشاذ العدل إملاء ، ثنا هارون بن العباس الهاشمي ، ثنا جندل بن والق ، ثنا عمرو بن أوس الأنصاري ثنا سعيد بن أبي عروبة ، عن قتادة ، عن سعيد بن المسيب ، عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال: أوحى الله إلى عيسى عليه السلام: يا عيسى آمن بمحمد وأمر من أدركه من أمتك أن يؤمنوا به، فلولا محمد ما خلقت آدم ولولا محمد ما خلقت الجنة ولا النار، ولقد خلقت العرش على الماء فاضطرب فكتبت عليه لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله فسكن.
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه

.
Translation: Ibn Abbas (ra) narrates that Allah inspired Isa (a.s) saying O Isa, believe in Muhammad (salallaho alaihi wasalam), and whosoever form your Ummah finds him should believe in him, If I had not created Muhammad (salallaho alaihi wasalam) then I would not have created Adam, If not for him I would not have created the paradise and hell, When I made the throne on Water, it started to shake, I wrote La Ilaha Il Allah Muhammad ur Rasul Ullah, due to which it became still

[Imam Hakim in Mustadrak ala Sahihayn, Volume No. 2, Page No. 609, Hadith No. 4227]– Imam Hakim after narrating it said: This Hadith has Sahih chain


Proof of it Authencity

Tabarani Mu’jam Al-Ausat Volume 006, Page No. 313-314, Hadith Number 6502
.Imam Bulqini also declares this tradition “sound” in his Fatawa. Imam Subki confirms Hakim’s authentication in [Shifa-us-siqam fi ziyarat khayr-il-anam Page No. 120-1]

For Scanned page ( Click here)

3rd Sahih Chain of Hadith

Why imams [rah] accept this hadith to be “SAHIH” or “HASAN” [sound]is because another hadith having Strong Chain and Sahih narrators is there as well.

Another chain which is absolutely SAHIH and has all STRONG NARRATORS . So when a Daeef hadith has same wording as strong Hadith it becmes strong as well

The Hadith of Maysara (ra) is the following:

وقد رواه أبو الحسن بن بشران من طريق الشيخ أبي الفرج بن الجوزي في (الوفا، بفضائل المصطفى) صلى الله عليه وسلّم: حدّثنا أبو جعفر محمد بن عمرو، حدّثنا أحمد بن إسحاق بن صالح، حدّثنا محمد ابن صالح، حدّثنا محمد بن سنان العوفي، حدّثنا إبراهيم بن طهمان عن يزيد بن ميسرة، عن عبد الله بن سفيان، عن ميسرة قال قلت
يا رسول الله، متى كنت نبياً؟ قال: «لَمَّا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ الأرْضَ وَاسْتَوَى إلَى السَّمَاءِ فَسَوَّاهنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَواتٍ وَخَلَقَ العَرْشَ كَتَبَ عَلَى سَاقِ العَرْشِ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ااِ خَاتَمُ الأنْبِيَاءِ وَخَلَقَ اللَّهُ الجَنَّةَ الَّتي أسْكَنَهَا آدَمَ وَحَوَّاءَ فَكَتَبَ اسْمِي عَلَى الأبْوَابِ وَالأوْرَاقِ وَالقِبَابِ وَالخِيَامِ وَآدَمُ بَيْنَ الرُّوحِ والجَسَدِ، فَلَمَّا أَحْيَاهُ الله تَعَالَى نَظَرَ إلَى العَرْشِ فَرَأَى اسمِي فأخْبَرَهُ ااُ أنَّهُ سَيِّدُ وَلَدِكَ، فَلَمَّا غَرَّهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ تَابَا وَاسْتَشْفَعَا بِاسْمِي إِلَيْهِ

Translation: Narrated by Maysara (ra), I asked: “O Messenger of Allah, when were you [first] a Prophet?” He replied: “When Allah created the earth ‘Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens’(2:29), and created the Throne, He wrote on the leg of the Throne: “Muhammad the Messenger of Allah is the Seal of Prophets” (Muhammadun Rasûlullâhi Khâtamu al-Anbiyâ’). Then Allah created the Garden in which He made Adam and Hawwa’ dwell, and He wrote my name on the gates, its tree-leaves, its domes and tents, at a time when Adam was still between the spirit and the body. When Allah Most High instilled life into him he looked at the Throne and saw my name, whereupon Allah informed him that ‘He [Muhammad SAWS] is the liege-lord of all your descendants.‘When Satan deceived them both, they repented and sought intercession to Allah “WITH MY NAME”.”

[Ibn Jawzi in Al Wafa bi Ahwaal lil Mustafa, Page No. 26, Published by Dar ul Kutab al Ilmiyyah]

Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salihi (student of Imam al-Hafidh As-Suyuti) said:

وروى ابن الجوزي بسند جيد لا بأس به

Translation:This hadith is narrated by Ibn Jawzi (rah) and the chain of it is “STRONG WHICH HAS NOTHING WRONG IN IT”

[Subul al-Hadi wal Rashhad, Volume No.1, Page No. 86 – Dar ul Kutb al iLmiyyah]

Conclusion

Ibn Taymiyyah as shown above said:

فهذا الحديث يؤيد الذي قبله وهما كالتفسير للأحاديث الصحيحة

Translation:This hadith corresponds to the hadith mentioned before (i.e. hadith of Umar ibn ul Khattab) These two are like the explanations (tafsir) of the authentic (Sahih) ahadith

[Majmua al Fatawa, 2/150]

This hadith has absolute sahih chain, although other hadith is declaired sahih as well, but when a as some call not sahih hadith has similar wordings to a Sahih hadith as above [Hadith by sahabi Maysara (ra)] it becomes Sahih as well,
,
shaykh `Abd Allah al-Ghumari cited it in Murshid al Ha ir li Bayan Wad Hadith Jabir and said,“its chain is good and strong”
,
while in al-Radd al-Muhkam al-Matin (p. 138-139) he adds:“It is the strongest Companion-corroboration (shâhid) I saw for the hadith of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd”as quoted also by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 248).

Maulana Muhammad ibn Moulana Haroon Abasoomar states:

“The chain of narrators for this Hadith is totally different from the previous one.Hafiz ibn Hajar Asqalani [ra] has statedconcerning a completely different narration which has the very same chain of narrators,[nany] that this chain of narrators is strong.

(al-Raddul Muhkamul Mateen pgs.138-139; al-Ahaadeethul Muntaqaa pg.14, both of Shaykh Abdullah Siddique al-Ghumarie)”

The student of Imam al-Suyuti: Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi, who died in the year 942 AH, has mentioned in his multi-volume Sira work known as: Subul al-Hadi wal Rashhad,

Narration is :

وروى ابن الجوزيبسند جيد لا بأس به، عن ميسرة رضي الله تعالى عنه قال : قلت يا رسول الله ، متى كنت نبيا ؟ قال : لما خلق الله الأرض واستوى إلى السماء فسواهن سبع سماوات وخلق العرش كتب على ساق العرش : محمد رسول الله خاتم الأنبياء . وخلق الله تعالى الجنة التي أسكنها آدم وحواء ، فكتب اسمي على الأوراق والأبواب والقباب والخيام ، وآدم بين الروح والجسد ، فلما أحياه الله تعالى نظر إلى العرش فرأى اسمي ، فأخبره الله تعالى أنه سيد ولدك . فلما غرهما الشيطان تابا واستشفعا باسمي إليه

The crucial point is highlighted in red above, where Imam al-Salihi declared the chain of transmission to be:.“Jayyid La Ba’sa bihi” [ “Good and there is no harm in it.]

And all narrators of this hadith are Thiqa or Sahih

this hadith is transmitted through several chains, some are little weak and others are Sahih and some are hasan, what some deviants do is to just quote those having weak chains and misguide others like this so be careful.

Wahabi sheikh ul islam ibn Taymiyyah accepted meaning of hadith as well

Complete refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah criticism of this hadith[ not meaning which he accepted ]is here. .,http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay11.html

Wahabi [pseudo salafi ] sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah accepted meaning
Now coming to ibn taymiyyah he evenn accepted the meaning of hadith
,
Explaining the hadiths Allah says ” Had it not being for you Muhammad (صلی اللہ علیھ وآلھ وسلم), I would have never created the universe,
,
IBN Taymiyyah said in Majmu 11:95 giving explanation of wordings of this hadith,

ويمكن أن يفسر بوجه صحيح كقوله. (سخر لكم ما في السماوات وما في الأرض) وقوله: (وسخر لكم الفلك لتجري في البحر بأمره وسخر لكم الأنهار وسخر لكم الشمس والقمر دائبين وسخر لكم الليل والنهار وآتاكم من كل ما سألتموه وإن تعدوا نعمة الله لا تحصوها) وأمثال ذلك من الآيات التي يبين فيها أنه خلق المخلوقات لبني آدم ومعلوم أن لله فيها حكما عظيمة غير ذلك [ص: 97 ] وأعظم من ذلك ولكن يبين لبني آدم ما فيها من المنفعة وما أسبغ عليهم من النعمة. فإذا قيل: فعل كذا لكذا لم يقتض أن لا يكون فيه حكمة أخرى. وكذلك قول القائل: لولا كذا ما خلق كذا لا يقتضي أن لا يكون فيه حكم أخرى عظيمة بل يقتضي إذا كان أفضل صالحي بني آدم محمد وكانت خلقته غاية مطلوبة وحكمة بالغة مقصودة [أعظم] من غيره صار تمام الخلق ونهاية الكمال حصل بمحمد صلى اله عليه وسلم. والله خلق السموات والأرض وما بينهما في ستة أيام وكان آخر الخلق يوم الجمعة وفيه خلق آدم وهو آخر ما خلق خلق يوم الجمعة بعد العصر في آخر يوم الجمعة. وسيد ولد آدم هو محمد صلى اله عليه وسلم – آدم فمن دونه تحت لوائه – قال صلى اله عليه وسلم (إني عند الله لمكتوب خاتم النبيين وإن آدم لمنجدل في طينته) أي كتبت نبوتي وأظهرت لما خلق آدم قبل نفخ الروح فيه كما يكتب الله رزق العبد وأجله وعمله وشقي أو سعيد إذا خلق الجنين قبل نفخ الروح فيه. فإذا كان الإنسان هو خاتم المخلوقات وآخرها [ص: 98 ] وهو الجامع لما فيها وفاضله هو فاضل المخلوقات مطلقا ومحمد إنسان هذا العين، وقطب هذه الرحى وأقسام هذا الجمع كان كأنها غاية الغايات في المخلوقات فما ينكر أن يقال: إنه لأجله خلقت جميعها وإنه لولاه لما خلقت فإذا فسر هذا الكلام ونحوه بما يدل عليه الكتاب والسنة قبل ذلك.

Explaining the hadithsAllah says ” Had it not being for you Muhammad (صلی اللہ علیھ وآلھ وسلم), I would have never created the universe,IBN Taymiyyah said in Majmu 11:95 giving explanation of wordings of this hadith,“And it is possible to interpret [it] with a sound meaning,like His statement ([Allah ] has made what is in the heavens and what is in the earth subservient to you), and His statement (And [He] has made the ships subservient to you, that they might run their course in the sea by His command, and He has made the rivers subservient to you. And He has made subservient to you the sun and the moon pursuing their courses, and He has made subservient to you the night and the day. And He gives you of all that you ask Him; and if you count Allah ’s favors, you will not be able to number them)as well as other such verses that make it clear that [Allah ] created all of creation for the sake of the children of Adam. ,It is well known that Allah has a great authority over it besides [what we have mentioned about] it and a vastly greater [one], but He [has stated this to] let the children of Adam know what is in it for their benefit, and how perfect are His blessings upon them.“…Since the best of the righteous ones from the children of Adam {A} is Muhammad {S}, creating him was a desirable end of deep-seated purposeful wisdom, more so than for anyone else, and hence the completion of creation and the fulfilment of perfection was attained with Muhammad…

of creation and the fulfilment of perfection was attained with Muhammad…

“…The best of the children of Adam is Muhammad {S} – Adam and his children being under his banner.
He {S} said: “Truly, I was written as the Seal of the Prophets with Allah , when Adam was being kneaded in his clay”,that is, my prophethood was decreed and manifested when Adam was created before the breathing of the Spirit into him, just as Allah decrees the sustenance, lifespan, deeds and misery or happiness of the person, when He creates the embryo [but] before the breathing of the spirit in it.
,
“Since man is the seal and last of all creation, and its microcosm, and since the best of man is thus the best of all creation absolutely,
then Muhammad being the light of the eye, the axis of the mill,and the distributor to the collective–is as it were the ultimate purpose from amongst all the purposes of creation.Thus it cannot be rejected if it is said “Due to him all of this was created”, or that “Were it not for him, all this would not have been created”.So if this statement and others like it are thus explained according to what the Book and the Sunna indicate,
it is acceptable.

HADITH NUMBER 5: Intercession of Ibn Umar [ra] by saying “YA Muhammad” during distress

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
,
Rewnowned Sahabi (ra) ibn e Umar(ra)
intercession After Prophet (saleh ala waalihi wasalam) death
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Abu Nu’aym related to us who said that Sufyan related to us from Abu Ishaq from Abdar Rahman ibn Sa’d, who said:

Ibn Umar had numbness in his leg, whereupon a man said to him:

“Remember the most beloved of people to you”, so he said: “Ya Muhammad”

Imam al-Bukhari in Adab al-Mufrad (Hadith No. 964):

Scanned image
,

,
Substantiating this, Allama Shahaab Khafaaji Misri (radi Allahu anhu) states in his “Naseem-ur Riyaaz” a commentary of the “Shifa” by Imaam Qaadi Ayaaz (radi Allahu anhu), that it is an established practice of the people of Medina Shareef to proclaim “Ya Muhammadah” in times of difficulty and anxiety.

Now on this hadith some ignorants claim thats it

Weak although Imam Bukhari [rah] recorded it in chapter of when leg becomes numb
,
They usually criticize two narrators, Ibn Ishaq and Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri (rah)
,

Quote:
WAHABIS SAY
,in some makhtoot of adab wal mufrad and narrations the word YA does’nt exist
only Muhammad exist
see thisقال: حدثنا أبو نعيم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال:خدرت رجل ابن عمر، فقال له رجل: أذكر أحب الناس إليك فقال: محمد.
Here only Muhammad Exist
الأدب المفرد” (964) Nuskha of misar and its even not in the nuskha of sangla hill india
2ndly
abu ishaaq in the chain is mudallis and he is narrating from (un)
abu ishaq is mudallis (tabqat ul mudalliseen)
and if mudallis narrate from (un) then he is not acceptable
قال ابن معين: سمع منه ابن عيينة بعدما تغير.
Ibn e moieen said ibn e uyuniya said taghaiyur ka shikar ho gya tha

Refuting Forgery that Ya Muhammad [saw] is not present
,

. In the printed edition of the Adab al-Mufrad by Samir al-Zuhayri (who utilised al-Albani’s gradings from his edition) it does have the “Ya” included.

The “Ya” Muhammad portion is also found in the Arabic text of the English printed edition by Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo (p. 414, no. 967) –but he left the “Ya” untranslated
,

Another narration with “Ya Muhammad” in its wording is also recorded by i) Ali ibn al Ja’d in his Musnad (no. 2539, see also Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi and Tabaqat ibn Sa’d below) as follows:
,

وبه عن أبي إسحاق ، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال : كنت عند عبد الله بن عمر فخدرت رجله فقلت له : يا أبا عبد الرحمن ، ما لرجلك ؟ قال : ” اجتمع عصبها من هاهنا ، قلت : ادع أحب الناس إليك ، قال : يا محمد ، فانبسطت
,
ii) Ibn al-Sunni in his Amal wal yaum wal Layla (no. 171):

أخبرني أحمد بن الحسن الصوفي ، حدثنا علي بن الجعد ، ثنا زهير ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد ، قال : ” كنت عند ابن عمر ، فخدرت رجله ، فقلت : يا أبا عبد الرحمن ، ما لرجلك ؟ قال : اجتمع عصبها من هاهنا . قلت : ادع أحب الناس إليك . فقال : يا محمد . فانبسطت “
.
This clearly show that some groups are doing forgery scanned page
The first 2 routes which are in number 167 and 169 are weaker in the sanad than that of al-Bukhari’s Adab al-Mufrad but for Asim all of these variations proved that the wording “Ya Muhammad” was used, Allah o akbar
,

In the 4 chains presented to date, all of them contain Abu Ishaq al-Sabii and he has narrated to 4 different students:

► Sufyan (as in Adab al-Mufrad and Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat)
► Zuhayr ibn Mu’awiya (as in Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d)
►Isra’il ibn Yunus (as in Ibn al Sunni)
►Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash (as in ibn al-Sunni)
,

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
,
Refuting from Ibn Taymiyyah on Ya Muhammad (saw) issue
,
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Asim’s sheikh ul islam Ibn Taymiyya also mention one version of it in his short work called Kalim al-Tayyib and his student the Hafiz of hadith in his age – al-Mizzi also mentioned it in his Tahdhib al-Kamal with his sanad as mentioned earlier.
,
Note that :Ibn Taymiyya or Al mizzi did not attack the story or its implications, let alone object to the Isnad’s authenticity.
,
What Ibn taymiyah mentioned
,
فصل في الرجل إذا خدرت
236 عن الهيثم بن حنش قال :
كنا عند عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما فخدرت رجله فقال له رجل : اذكر أحب الناس إليك فقال : يا محمد فكأنما نشط من عقال .
,

[version from Ibn al-Sunni (no. 169), Ibn Taymiyya mentioned in his Kalim al-Tayyeb ]
More proofs on Authenticity of “YA Muhammad word” now refuting on authenticity of “YA” Muhammad matn
,
Ibn Hajar deduced from Ibn Hibban and Nasa’i’s tawthiq in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib:


[ 3877 ] عبد الرحمن بن سعد القرشي مولى بن عمر كوفي وثقه النسائي من الثالثة بخ
.

the narration in al-Bukhari’s Adab al-Mufrad (similar sanad in Tabaqat ibn Sa’d) appears to be Sahih, and its matn has come in close wording via other routes which contain some forms of weakness as recorded by Ibn al-Sunni in his Amal wal Yaum wal Layla as follows:
,

No. 167
حدثني محمد بن إبراهيم الأنماطي ، وعمرو بن الجنيد بن عيسى ، قالا : ثنا محمد بن خداش ، ثنا أبو بكر بن عياش ، ثنا أبو إسحاق السبيعي ، عن أبي شعبة ، قال : كنت أمشي مع ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما ، فخدرت رجله ، فجلس ، فقال له رجل : اذكر أحب الناس إليك . فقال : ” يا محمداه فقام فمشى

Number 169

حدثنا محمد بن خالد بن محمد البرذعي ، ثنا حاجب بن سليمان ، ثنامحمد بن مصعب ، ثنا إسرائيل ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن الهيثم بن حنش ، قال : كنا عند عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما ، فخدرت رجله ، فقال له رجل : ” اذكر أحب الناس إليك . فقال : يا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم . قال : فقام فكأنما نشط من عقال
.

No. 171

أخبرني أحمد بن الحسن الصوفي ، حدثنا علي بن الجعد ، ثنا زهير ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد ، قال : ” كنت عند ابن عمر ، فخدرت رجله ، فقلت : يا أبا عبد الرحمن ، ما لرجلك ؟ قال : اجتمع عصبها من هاهنا . قلت : ادع أحب الناس إليك . فقال : يا محمد . فانبسطت “

The Tabaqat of ibn Sad (number 4776) also mentions it as pointed out earlier:

قال : أخبرنا الفضل بن دكين ، قال : حدثنا سفيان ، وزهير بن معاوية ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد ، قال : كنت عند ابن عمر فخدرت رجله , فقلت : يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما لرجلك ؟ قال : اجتمع عصبها من هاهنا – هذا في حديث زهير وحده – قال : قلت : ادع أحب الناس إليك , قال : يا محمد

Refuting Stupid claim on Abu Ishaq , Narrator of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

Refuting Stupid claim on Abu Ishaq , Narrator of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
,

There is no proof that Zuhayr transmitted from Abu Ishaq any confused wordings here as he is also supported by one of the two Sufyan’s with identical wording.
Also, this route of Zuhayr from Abu Ishaq is in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim.

According to this logic even hadiths of Sahih bukhari and Sahih muslim should be Weak , Except Albani shahib no one has the Art to declare Bukhari and Muslim Daeef :


Examples:

In Sahih al-Bukhari:

صحيح البخاري، الجزء الثاني >> 60 – كتاب الجهاد والسير >> 96 – باب: من صف أصحابه عند الهزيمة، ونزل عن دابته واستنصر.

2772 – حدثنا عمرو بن خالد: حدثنا زهير : حدثنا أبو إسحاق قال: سمعت البراء وسأله رجل:
أكنتم فررتم يا أبا عمارة يوم حنين؟ قال: لا والله، ما ولى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولكنه خرج شبان أصحابه وأخفاؤهم حسرا ليس بسلاح، فأتوا قوما رماة، جمع هوازن وبني نصر، ما يكاد يسقط لهم سهم، فرشقوهم رشقا ما يكادون يخطئون، فأقبلوا هنالك إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو على بغلته البيضاء، وابن عمه أبو سفيان بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب يقود به، فنزل واستنصر، ثم قال: (أنا النبي لا كذب، أنا ابن عبد المطلب). ثم صف أصحابه
,
, again from Sahih bukhari
,
3419 – حدثنا محمد بن يوسف: حدثنا أحمد بن زيد بن إبراهيم، أبو الحسن الحزاني: حدثنا زهير بن معاوية : حدثنا أبو إسحاق : سمعت البراء ابن عازب يقول:
جاء أبو بكر رضي الله عنه إلى أبي في منزله، فاشترى منه رحلا، فقال لعازب: ابعث ابنك يحمله معي، قال: فحملته معه، وخرج أبي ينتقد ثمنه، فقال له أبي: يا أبا بكر، حدثني كيف صنعتما حين سريت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: نعم، أسرينا ليلتنا ومن الغد، حتى قام قائم الظهيرة وخلا الطريق لا يمر فيه أحد، فرفعت لنا صخرة طويلة لها ظل، لم تأت عليه الشمس، فنزلنا عنده، وسويت للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مكانا بيدي

Arabic continues …. ^^ will not mention that
,
,

Proof from Sahih Muslim:

صحيح مسلم.
الجزء الأول >> 6 – كتاب صلاة المسافرين وقصرها >> (2) باب قصر الصلاة بمنى

21 – (696) حدثنا أحمد بن عبدالله بن يونس. حدثنا زهير . حدثنا أبو إسحاق . حدثني حارثة بن وهب الخزاعي؛ قال:
صليت خلف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بمنى، والناس أكثر ما كانوا، فصلى ركعتين في حجة الوداع.
(قال مسلم): حارثة بن وهب الخزاعي، هو أخو عبيدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب، لأمه
,

,Isra’il is the grandson of Abu Ishaq al-Sabii and ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb al-Tahdhib about him:

[ 401 ] إسرائيل بن يونس بن أبي إسحاق السبيعي الهمداني أبو يوسف الكوفي ثقة تكلم فيه بلا حجة من السابعة مات سنة ستين وقيل بعدها ع

He is thus Thiqa though some spoke about him without any Hujja and his narrations are in the Sihah Sitta also. One can find Isra’il’s narrations from Abu Ishaq in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim.Examples from Sahih al-Bukhari:
,
Note, in these examples the narrator – Abu Ishaq al-Sabi’i also reported from his Shaykh via use of an-ana.Examples from Sahih bukhari
,
الجزء الأول >> 3 – كتاب العلم. >> 48 – باب: من ترك بعض الاختيار، مخافة أن يقصر فهم بعض الناس عنه، فيقعوا في أشد منه.

126 – حدثنا عبيد الله بن موسى، عن إسرائيل ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن الأسود قال: قال لي ابن الزبير:
كانت عائشة تسر إليك كثيرا، فما حدثتك في الكعبة؟ قلت: قالت لي: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (يا عائشة لولا قومك حديث عهدهم – قال ابن الزبير – بكفر، لنقضت الكعبة، فجعلت لها بابين: باب يدخل الناس وباب يخرجون). ففعله ابن الزبير.

(3741) – حدثنا عبد الله بن رجاء: حدثنا إسرائيل ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن البراء قال: كنا أصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نتحدث:
أن عدة أصحاب بدر على عدة أصحاب طالوت الذين جاوزوا معه النهر، ولم يجاوز معه إلا مؤمن، بضعة عشر وثلاثمائة.

(3352) – حدثنا عبد الله بن رجاء: حدثنا إسرائيل ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن وهب أبي جحيفة السوائي قال:
رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، ورأيت بياضا من تحت شفته السفلى، العنفقة


example of Example in Sahih Muslim:

صحيح مسلم. الجزء الرابع. >> 53 – كتاب الزهد والرقائق >> 19 – باب في حديث الهجرة. ويقال له: حديث الرحل

75-م – (2009) وحدثنيه زهير بن حرب. حدثنا عثمان بن عمر. ح وحدثناه إسحاق بن إبراهيم. أخبرنا النضر بن شميل. كلاهما عن إسرائيل ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن البراء. قال:
اشترى أبو بكر من أبي رحلا بثلاثة عشر درهما. وساق الحديث. بمعنى حديث زهير عن أبي إسحاق . وقال في حديثه، من رواية عثمان بن عمر: فلما دنا دعا عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. فساخ فرسه في الأرض إلى بطنه. ووثب عنه. وقال: يا محمد! قد علمت أن هذا عملك. فادع الله أن يخلصني مما أنا فيه. ولك علي لأعمين على من ورائي. وهذه كنانتي. فخذ سهما منها. فإنك ستمر على إبلي وغلماني بمكان كذا وكذا. فخذ منها حاجتك. قال “لا حاجة لي في إبلك” فقدمنا المدينة ليلا. فتنازعوا أيهم ينزل عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. فقال “أنزل على بني النجار، أخوال عبدالمطلب، أكرمهم بذلك” فصعد الرجال والنساء فوق البيوت. وتفرق الغلمان والخدم في الطرق. ينادون: يا محمد! يا رسول الله! يا محمد! يا رسول الله
,
Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb al-Tahdhib about Abu Ishaq:

[ 5065 ] عمرو بن عبد الله بن عبيد ويقال علي ويقال بن أبي شعيرة الهمداني أبو إسحاق السبيعي بفتح المهملة وكسر الموحدة ثقة مكثر عابد من الثالثة اختلط بأخرة مات سنة تسع وعشرين ومائة وقيل قبل ذلك ع
,
This shows that Abu Ishaq is Thiqa, his narrations are in the Sihah Sitta though he deteriorated in memory at the end of his days.
,
although there is no proof that this hadith was transmitted when memory loss was going on , A useless Jirrah on imams as usual as people do just to support their aqeeda
,
The notice above from the Tahdhib al-Tahdhib mentions that amongst those who took from Abu Ishaq include:

Sufyan al-Thawri

Sufyan ibn Uyayna

Isra’il ibn Yunus

Zuhayr ibn Mu’awiya


A Jahil objecting on Sahih bukhari by making “an-ana” issue here

,
Some Jahil objected that Abu Ishaq al-Sabi’i was a Mudallis and when ever he used an-ana from the Shaykh he claimed to report from his narrations are not acceptable.
,
Indeed, there does not seem to be any proof that an-ana utilised by Abu Ishaq leads to an automatic illa (hidden defect in the sanad)being raised for every single chain he used an-ana to transmit his narrations for.

,
so there is no specific proof that any hadith scholar accused Abu Ishaq of committing tadlees when reporting from the next narrator(Abdar Rahman ibn Sa’d) as in al-Bukhari’s version from the Adab al-Mufrad.

Rather, there are a number of examples where Abu Ishaq used an-ana to transmit from the next narrator in the sanad in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Allah o Akbar,
,


Examples of Abu Ishaq performing an-ana from a Shaykh in Sahih al-Bukhari

See how Imam al-Bukhari also accepted some narrations where one of the two Sufyan’s transmitted from Abu Ishaq by an-ana and then Abu Ishaq did an-ana when reporting from his Shaykh
,,
Example of Sahih Bukhari refuting fabricated claim
,
، الجزء الأول >> 2 – كتاب الإيمان. >> 29 – باب: الصلاة من الإيمان.

40 – حدثنا عمرو بن خالد قال: حدثنا زهير قال: حدثنا أبو إسحاق، عن البراء، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم:

كان أول ما قدم المدينة نزل على أجداده، أو قال أخواله من الأنصار، وأنه صلى قبل بيت المقدس ستة عشر شهرا، أو سبعة شهرا، وكان يعجبه أن تكون قبلته قبل البيت، وأنه صلى أول صلاة صلاها


Examples of Abu Ishaq performing an-ana from a Shaykh in Sahih al-Bukhari

See how Imam al-Bukhari also accepted some narrations where one of the two Sufyan’s transmitted from Abu Ishaq by an-ana and then Abu Ishaq did an-ana when reporting from his Shaykh
, Example of Sahih bukhari
,

الجزء الثاني >> 59 – كتاب الوصايا. >> 1 – باب: الوصايا، وقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (وصية الرجل مكتوبة عنده)

2588 – حدثنا إبراهيم بن الحارث: حدثنا يحيى بن أبي بكير: حدثنا زهير بن معاوية الجعفي: حدثنا أبو إسحاق، عن عمرو بن الحارث،

ختن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أخي جويرية بنت الحارث، قال: ما ترك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عند موته درهما، ولا دينارا، ولا عبدا، ولا أمة، ولا شيئا، إلا بغلته البيضاء، وسلاحه، وأرضا جعلها صدقة.

,
Another example from Bukhari refuting Asim
,

الجزء الثاني >> 60 – كتاب الجهاد والسير >> 32 – باب: الصبر عند القتال.

2678 – حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد: حدثنا معاوية بن عمرو: حدثنا أبو إسحاق، عن موسى بن عقبة، عن سالم أبي النضر: أن عبد الله بن أبي أوفى كتب، فقرأته:

إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: (إذا لقيتموهم فاصبروا
,
Another example from Bukhari refuting on an-ana issue
,
,

الجزء الثاني >> 60 – كتاب الجهاد والسير >> 85 – باب: من لم ير كسر السلاح عند الموت.

2755 – حدثنا عمرو بن عباس: حدثنا عبد الرحمن، عن سفيان، عن أبي إسحاق، عن عمرو بن الحارث قال:

ما ترك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا سلاحه، وبغلة بيضاء، وأرضا جعلها صدقة.

next
,
صحيح البخاري، الجزء الثاني >> 60 – كتاب الجهاد والسير >> 97 – باب: الدعاء على المشركين بالهزيمة والزلزلة.

2776 – حدثنا عبد الله بن أبي شيبة: حدثنا جعفر بن عون: حدثنا سفيان، عن أبي إسحاق، عن عمرو بن ميمون، عن عبد الله رضي الله

عنه قال:

كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يصلي في ظل الكعبة، فقال أبو جهل وناس من قريش، ونحرت جزور بناحية مكة، فأرسلوا فجاؤوا من سلاها وطرحوه عليه، فجاءت فاطمة فألقته عنه، فقال: (اللهم عليك بقريش، اللهم عليك بقريش، اللهم عليك بقريش). لأبي جهل بن هشام، وعتبة بن ربيعة، وشيبة بن ربيعة، والوليد بن عتبة، وأبي بن خلف، وعقبة بن أبي معيط. قال عبد الله: فلقد رأيتهم في قليب بدر قتلى. قال أبو إسحاق: ونسيت السابع. وقال يوسف بن إسحاق، عن أبي إسحاق: أمية بن خلف. وقال شعبة: أمية أو أبي. والصحيح أمية.

next
صحيح البخاري

الجزء الثاني >> 66 – كتاب فضائل الصحابة >> 56 – باب: أيام الجاهلية.

3626 – حدثني عمرو بن عباس: حدثنا عبد الرحمن: حدثنا سفيان، عن أبي إسحاق، عن عمرو بن ميمون قال:

قال عمر رضي الله عنه: إن المشركين كانوا لا يفيضون من جمع حتى تشرق الشمس على ثبير، فخالفهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأفاض قبل أن تطلع الشمس.

Examples in Sahih Muslim where Zuhayr or Sufyan reported by an-ana from Abu Ishaq and then Abu Ishaq reporting with an-ana from his Shaykh
,
Sahih muslim refutes Jahils claim
,
الجزء الثاني >> 12 – كتاب الزكاة. >> (20) باب الحث على الصدقة ولو بشق تمرة أو كلمة طيبة، وأنها حجاب من النار

66- (1016) حدثنا عون بن سلام الكوفي. حدثنا زهير بن معاوية الجعفي عن أبي إسحاق، عنعبدالله بن معقل، عن عدي بن حاتم ؛ قال: سمعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
“من استطاع منكم أن يستتر من النار ولو بشق تمرة، فليفعل”.

[ش (بشق) الشق بكسر الشين، نصفها وجانبها].

صحيح مسلم. الجزء الثالث >> 32 – كتاب الجهاد والسير >> 49 – باب عدد غزوات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

144 – (1254) وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة. حدثنا يحيى بن آدم. حدثنا زهير عن أبي إسحاق، عن زيد بن أرقم، سمعه منه؛

أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غزا تسع عشرة غزوة. وحج بعد ما هاجر حجة لم يحج غيرها. حجة الوداع

صحيح مسلم. الجزء الرابع. >> 44 – كتاب فضائل الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم >> 1 – باب من فضائل أبي بكر الصديق، رضي الله عنه

5 – (2383) حدثنا محمد بن المثنى وابن بشار قالا: حدثنا عبدالرحمن. حدثني سفيان عن أبي إسحاق، عن أبي الأحوص، عن عبدالله. ح وحدثنا عبد بن حميد. أخبرنا جعفر بن عون. أخبرنا أبو عميس عن ابن أبي مليكة، عن عبدالله. قال:
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم “لو كنت متخذا خليلا لاتخذت ابن أبي قحافة خليلا”.
,
Don’t ask for more proofs from Bukhari or Muslim on an-ana issue, I can show alot more but am tired


another prove from Sahih muslim refuting Jahil on An-ana

,

الجزء الرابع. >> 48 – كتاب الذكر والدعاء والتوبة والاستغفار >> 18 – باب التعوذ من شر ما عمل، ومن شر ما لم يعمل
72-م – (2721) وحدثنا ابن المثنى وابن بشار. قالا: حدثنا عبدالرحمن عن سفيان، عن أبي إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد، مثله. غير أن ابن المثنى قال في روايته “والعفة”.
,

Jahil should note that the last narrator in the sanad of al-Bukhari’s Adab al-Mufrad is Abdar Rahman ibn Sa’d who was a free slave of Ibn Umar (ra) based in Kufa.
,

In the Tahdhib alKamal of al Mizzi (volume number 17) under his biography the very narration under analysis is mentioned via the route of Ali ibn al-Ja’d from Zuhayr from Abu Ishaq, as well as mentioning that it is also from the route of Abu Nu’aym from Sufyan from Abu Ishaq as is found in Adab al-Mufrad of al-Bukhari in an abridged form.

,
let me show the Jahil what Al-Mizzi mentioned:
,

[ 3832 ] بخ عبد الرحمن بن سعد القرشي العدوي مولى بن عمر كوفي روى عن أخيه عبد الله بن سعد ومولاه عبد الله بن عمر بخ روى عنه حماد بن أبي سليمان وأبو شيبة عبد الرحمن بن إسحاق الكوفي ومنصور بن المعتمر وأبو إسحاق السبيعي بخ ذكره بن حبان في كتاب الثقات روى له البخاري في كتاب الأدب حديثا واحدا موقوفا وقد وقع لنا عاليا عنه أخبرنا به أبو الحسن بن البخاري وزينب بنت مكي قالا أخبرنا أبو حفص بن طبرزد قال أخبرنا الحافظ أبو البركات الأنماطي قال أخبرنا أبو محمد الصريفيني قال أخبرنا أبو القاسم بن حبابة قال أخبرنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي قال حدثنا علي بن الجعد قال أخبرنا زهير عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن سعد قال كنت عند عبد الله بن عمر فخدرت رجله فقلت له يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما لرجلك قال اجتمع عصبها من ها هنا قال قلت ادع أحب الناس إليك فقال يا محمد فانبسطت رواه عن أبي نعيم عن سفيان عن أبي إسحاق مختصرا

Ibn Hajar mentioned the about Abdar Rahman ibn Sa’d in his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 6. that
Abdar Rahman ibn Sa’d is Thiqa as Ibn Hajar deduced from Ibn Hibban and Nasa’i’s tawthiq in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib:

Replying the Jahil on Sufyan Thawri [rah]
,

regarding Sufyan Thawri as mudalis as he calls him everywhere
lets see what Wahabi scholars [your ulemas] say about it
,
wahabi scholars themselves accepted themselves accept ahadith with “UN” of Mudaliseen to suit their desires

,
Yahya Gondalvi writes:

سفيان الثورى الام المشهور الفقيه العابد الحافظ الكبير وصفه النسائى وغير بالتدليس وقال البخارى ما اقل تدليسه

Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri (rah) was a famous Faqih, Aabid, “Hafidh ul-Kabeer” Imam Nasai and others said: that he was Mudalis but Imam Bukhari said: His Tadlees is “VERY LITTLE”

,
Imam al-Hafidh Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (rah) has classified Mudaliseen into 5 categories and he has kept Sufyan Thawri (rah) in the second category and he has himself clarified about 2nd category of Mudaliseen, he said:

,

الثانية من احتمل الائمة تدليس واخرجواله فى الصحيح لامامته وقلة تدليسه فى جنب ماروى كالثورى اوكان لايدلس الاعن ثقه كابن عيينه

The second category of Mudaliseen have been “ACCEPTED BY SCHOLARS AS THEIR AHADITH ARE TAKEN IN CATEGORY OF SAHIH BECAUSE OF THEIR LITTLE TADLEES, FOR EXAMPLE SUFYAN THAWRI (RAH)”

In this category the narrators have done tadlees from “THIQA” narrators just like Imam Ibn Uyaynah (rah) did.

It is clear from this Usooli discussion made by Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (rah) that Sufyan Thawri was Mudalis but his Tadlees was “NOT HARMFUL WHICH WOULD EFFECT THE CREDIBILITY OF HADITH” so the Hadith cannot be rejected because of this Tadlis

-End Quote – [From Wahabi Reference Yahya Gondalvi in Aameen bil Jahr, Page No. 25-26]

,

same rule applies on abu ishaq [rah]
Replying the Jahil on Sufyan Thawri [rah]
,
Sheikh ul Islam Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (rah) beautifully clarifies about this “Ameer ul momineen fil hadith Sufyan Thawri (rah)”:
,

وما اشاء شيخاص اطلاق تخريج اصحاب الصحيح لطائفة منهم حيث جعل منهم قسما احتمل الائمة تدليسه وخرجو اله فى الصحيح لا مامته و قلة تدليسه فى جنب ماروى كالثورى يتزل على هزا لايسما وقد جعل من هزا القسم من كان لا يدلس الا عن ثقة كا بن عينية

,: This has been pointed out by Sheikh (Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani) that Ashaab us-Sahih have narrated “FROM JAMAAT OF MUDALISEEN”and they have categorized those Mudaliseen as those who are “ACCEPTED BY IMAMS OF HADITH” and they have taken them in their Sahih because of their “LITTLE TADLEES” in this comparison Imam Sufyan Thawri should be considered..
(i.e. equal and better than those narrators)” this includes those Mudaliseen who did not narrate from other than Thiqa such as Ibn Uyainah
,
[Fath al Mugheeth – Imam Sakhawi (1/177)]

,
Allama Ibn Hazm said: If the Mudallis is “THIQA” then his narration with “UNANA (UN) IS TOTALLY (MUTLAQQAN) ACCEPTED” (i.e. if he narrated from other Thiqa narrator)
, [Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla Volume No.7, Page No. 419, Al-Ahkaam (6/135)]
,
otherwise even Imam Malik is mentioned in Mudaliseen

Imam Malik was mentioned amongst Mudaliseen [Tabaqat al Mudaliseen by Imam Ibn Hajr (1/29)]

,
If Every Narration of UN is rejected than SAhih Bukhari, Muslim, Malik Mawtta are weak too according to Jahils in Islam

Imam Ibn Salah (rah) writes:
,

وفى الصحيح وغيرهما من الكتب المعتمدة من حديث هزا الضرب كثير جدا كقتاده ، والاعمش ، والسفيانين ، وهشيم بن بشير وغيرهم ، وهزا لان التدليس ليس كنبا وانما هو ضرب من الايهام بلفظ محتمل .
,
In the Sahihayn there are many such ahadith (i.e. with un of mudaliseen), like Qatada, Am’ash, Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan bin Uyaina, Hasheem bin Basheer etc…

have narrayed. This is because “TADLEES IS NOT A LIE” rather it is a kind of Ihyam which has to be properly checked [Muqama Ibn Salah, Page No. 75]
,
Khateeb Baghdadi (rah) while further explaining it said:

,
فان كان تدليسا عن ثقه لم يحتج ان يوقف على شئ وقبل منه ، ومن كان يدلس عن غير ثقه لم يقبل منه الحديث ازا ارسله حتى يقول حدثنى فلان اوسمت ، نحن نقبل تدليس ابن عيينه ونظرائه ، لانه يحيل على ملئ ثقه .
,Tadlees is of two kinds, If Tadlis is from a “THIQA NARRATOR” then there is no need to find out more about this matter…
,
and that narration will be “ACCEPTED” however if the person is Ghair Thiqa then such a hadith will not be accepted till he clarifies that who has narrated the hadith (Hadasna) to him or that he heard from Fulan (Samaat).

We consider Tadlees of Ibn Uyainah and people of his worth (Sufyan Thawri) as “ACCEPTABLE” because they narrated from Mustanad Thiqa narrators
,
[Khatib al Baghdadi, Al-Kifayah, Page No. 362]
,
Sheikh ul Islam Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rah) writes from the reference of Ibn Daqiq al `Eid (rah):

It is necessary to keep such an (equal) standard according to which “Narrations with Mudaliseen in all books are accepted or narrations with Mudaliseen in all books should be rejected” This distinction between Siha and ghair Siha “CANNOT BE DECLARED AS CORRECT”
,
one reason of this is that such a distinction could only occur when Sahib of Sahih has Marifah of Samaat “AND THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE”because only conjecture is proven, the second reason is that there is Ijma of Sahihayn that all ahadith in Sahiyan are based on Samaat otherwise AHAL AL Ijma will gather on misguidance which is “Impossible” but this kind of Ijma “REQUIRES PROOF” and …
THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT (TO PROVE)” so this Istidlaal cannot be done that reports other than Sahihayn are not correct when they come from Mudaliseen and that it could be said that certain hadith is Sahih on criteria of Muslim
,
[Al-Nukar ‘ala Kitab Ibn al-Salah – Ibn Hajr, Page NO. 635-6]

Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Hajar Asqalani [rah] made categories in this regard and kept Sufyan Thawri (rah) in the second category, he said:
,

الثانية: من أكثر الائمة من إخراج حديثه إما لامامته أو لكونه قليل التدليس في جنب ماروى من الحديث الكثير أو أنه كان لا يدليس إلا عن ثقة

فمن هزا الضرب:

ابراهيم بن أبي يزيد النخعي ، واسماعيل بن أبي خالد ، وبشير بن المهاجر ، والحسن بن زكوان ، والحسن البصري ، والحكم بن عتية ، وحماد بن أسامة
وزكريا بن أبي زايدة ، وسالم بن أبي الجعد ، وسعيد بن أبي عروبة ، وسفيان الثوري ، وسفيان بن عيينة ، وشريك القاضي ، وعبدالله بن عطاء المكي ، وعكرمة بن خالد المخزومي ، ومحمد بن خازم أبو معاوية الضرير ، ومخرمة بن بكير ، ويونس بن عبيد .
,

(In second category) come many Imams (Muhaditheen) whose ahadith have been referenced with UN due to their greatness of their Imamat….
,
Their Tadlees is “VERY LITTLE” very little even though they narrated overwhelming (Katheer) narrations from and this is because their Tadlees is always from “THIQA” narrators.

,
These are the people in this category:
,

1) Ibrahim bin Abi Yazid al-Nakhai (rah)
2) Ismail bin Abi Khalid (rah)
3) Basheer bin al-Mahajir (rah)
4) Al-Hasan bin Zaqwan (rah)
5) Al-Hasan al Basri (rah)

6) Al-Hakim bin Utba (rah)
7) Hammad bin Usama (rah)
8) Zikrayn bin Abi Zaida (rah)
9) Salib bin Abi al-Ja’d (rah)
10) Saeed ibn Abi Urooba (rah)
11) “SUFYAN AL-THAWRI (rah)”
12) “SUFYAN BIN UYAIYNA (rah)”

,
13) Shareek al-Qadhi
14) Abdullah bin Ata al Makki
15) Akrama bin Khalid
16) Muhammd bin Khazim, Abu Muawiya al-Zarar
17) Mukhraba Ibn Bakeer

18) Yunus bin Ubaid

[al-Nukat ‘ala Kitab Ibn al-Salah – Ibn Hajr, Page No. 635-6]

. please note that even great Tabiyeen like Hasan Basri (rah), and great scholars like Sufyan Thawri, Sufyan bin Uyainah, are mentioned .
,
but Alhamdulillah Tadlees of these narrators from Thiqa narrators “IS NOT REJECTED”


conclusion

This hadith recorded by Imam Bukhari [rah] in Adab ul Mufrad is Sahih according to Criteria of Sahih Bukhari And Sahih muslim
,
Any Jahil who does weird criticism to prove such Hadiths weak is a Jahil and should not be consulted for any thing religious. salam
HADITH NUMBER 6: Getting help by intercession [tawassul] by going to Prophet’s (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) grave during Khilafat of Umar (رضّى الله عنه)

NARRATION OF MALIK AL-DAR


Imam al-Bayhaqi relates with a sound (sahih) chain:

أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا. فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس. فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said:

“O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!”

The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!””


References

Ibn-e-Abi Sahiba in Al-Musanaf (Vol.6,Page356,Hadith No:32002)

Ibn-e-Abdul Bar in Al-Isteaab (Vol.3, Page1149)

Al-Bahaqi in Dalail-un-Nabu’wa (Vol.8,Page 47)

As-Subaqi in Shifa-as-Saqam (Vol.1,Page 130)

Ibn-e-Taymiya in Fi-Iqtida-as-Sirat-il-Mustaqim (Vol.1,Page 373)

Al-Hindi in Kanz-ul-Ammal (Vol.8,Page 431)

►Ibn-e-Kathir (by declaring its isnad as Sahih) in Al-Badaya-wan-Nahaya(Vol.5,Page 168)

Imam Al-Asqalani (by declaring its isnad as Sahih) in Al-Asabah(Vol.3, Page 484)

What follows is the original Arabic wording of this hadith of tawassul in Umar ibn al Khattab’s time as cited by various major scholars of Hadith:


From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH)

مُصَنَّفُ ابْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ >> كِتَابُ الْفَضَائِلِ >> مَا ذُكِرَ فِي فَضْلِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ >>
يَا رَبِّ لَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

31380 حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك الدار ، قال : وكان خازن عمر على الطعام ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر ، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ، استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له : ” ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مستقيمون وقل له : عليك الكيس ، عليك الكيس ” ، فأتى عمر فأخبره فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

From Imam al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7/47)

دَلَائِلُ النُّبُوَّةِ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ مَنْ رَأَى فِي مَنَامِهِ شَيْئًا مِنْ آثَارِ نُبُوَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي رُؤْيَةِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي >>
مَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

2974 أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة ، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا : أخبرنا أبو عمرو بن مطر ، أخبرنا أبو بكر بن علي الذهلي ، أخبرنا يحيى ، أخبرنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب ؛ فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ؛ فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ؛ فقال ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مسقون . وقل له : عليك الكيس الكيس . فأتى الرجل عمر ، فأخبره ، فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *


From al-Irshad fi Ma’rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/313-314)

الْإِرْشَادُ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ عُلَمَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ لِلْخَلِيلِيِّ >>
مَالِكُ الدَّارِ

مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب الرعاء عنه : تابعي , قديم , متفق عليه , أثنى عليه التابعون , وليس بكثير الرواية , روى عن أبي بكر الصديق , وعمر , وقد انتسب ولده إلى جبلان ناحية . حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن عبدوس المزكي أبو بكر النيسابوري , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن الشرقي , حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب قال : قلت لعلي بن عثام العامري الكوفي : لم سمي مالك الدار ؟ فقال : الداري المتطيب . حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي , حدثنا أبو خيثمة , حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير , حدثنا الأعمش , عن أبي صالح , عن مالك الدار ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب , فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا نبي الله , استسق الله لأمتك فرأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال : ” ائت عمر , فأقرئه السلام , وقل له : إنكم مسقون , فعليك بالكيس الكيس ” . قال : فبكى عمر , وقال : يا رب , ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه يقال : إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث , والباقون أرسلوه

Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106)

وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.

Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba (3/484) :

الإصابة – لابن حجر

8362[ص:274] مالك بن عياض مولى عمر هو الذي يقال له مالك الدار له إدراك وسمع من أبي بكر الصديق وروى عن الشيخين ومعاذ وأبي عبيدة روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وابناه عون وعبدالله ابنا مالك وأخرج البخاري في التاريخ من طريق أبي صالح ذكوان عن مالك الدار أن عمر قال في قحوط المطر يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه وأخرجه بن أبي خيثمة من هذا الوجه مطولا قال أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال له ائت عمر فقل له إنكم مستسقون فعليك الكفين قال فبكى عمر وقال يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه وروينا في فوائد داود بن عمرو الضبي جمع البغوي من طريق عبدالرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع المخزومي عن مالك الدار قال دعاني عمر بن الخطاب يوما فإذا عنده صرة من ذهب فيها أربعمائة دينار فقال اذهب بهذه إلى أبي عبيدة فذكر قصته وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين في أهل المدينة قال روى عن أبي بكر وعمر وكان معروفا وقال أبو عبيدة ولاه عمر كيلة عيال عمر فلما قدم عثمان ولاه القسم فسمى مالك الدار وقال إسماعيل القاضي عن علي بن المديني كان مالك الدار خازنا لعمر.

Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495)

وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري – وكان خازن عمر – قال ” أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر ” الحديث.
وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.

Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Isti’ab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said:

وروى أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار قال‏:‏ أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا‏.‏

In fact Imam ibn Hajar and Imam ibn Kathir explicitly declared its Isnad to be Sahih.

Ibn Kathir in his recently published: Jami al-Masanid (1/223) – Musnad Umar – declared it as: “Isnaduhu Jayyid Qawi: ITS CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION IS GOOD AND STRONG!”

Here are those who called above hadith sound
,
► Ibn Taymiyyah has endorsed its authenticity in his book Iqtidā’-us-sirāt-il-mustaqīm mukhālifat ashāb-il-jahīm (p.373).

► Ibn Kathīr has confirmed the soundness of its transmission in al-Bidāyah wan-nihāyah (5:167).
,
► Ibn Abū Khaythamah narrated it with the same chain of transmission as quoted by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī in al-Isābah fī tamyīz-is-sahābah (3:484),
,
►Imam Ibn e Hajar (rah) writes in Fath-ul-bārī (2:495-6): “Ibn Abū Shaybah transmitted it with a sound chain of transmission and Sayf bin ‘Umar Tamīmī has recorded it in al-Futūh-ul-kabīr that the dreamer was a Companion known as Bilāl bin Hārith Muzanī.”
,
► Qastallānī has remarked in al-Mawāhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276) that Ibn Abū Shaybah has narrated it with a sound chain of transmission
,
► Zurqānī has supported Qastallānī in his Commentary (11:150-1) and called its chain sound
11/9/09

Quote:
Wahabi [pseudo salafis] And Albani objection

He said
“Firstly: We do not accept that this story is authentic since the reliablity and precision of Maalik ad-Daar is not known, and these are two principle conditions necessary for the authenticity of any narration, as is affirmed in the science of hadeeth. Ibn Abee Haatim mentions him in al-Jarh wa-Ta’deel (4/1/213) and does not mention anyone who narrates from him except Abu Saalih. So this indicates that he is unknown, and this is further emphasized by the fact that Ibn Abee Haatim himself, who is well known for his memorization and wide knowledge, did not quote anyone who declared him reliable, so he remains unknown. Then this does not contradict the saying of al-Haafidh (Ibn Hajar): ‘…with an authentic chain of narration, from the narration of Abu Saalih as-Samaan…’ since we say: It is not declaration that all of the chain of narration is authentic (saheeh), rather only that it is so up to Abu Saalih. If that were not the case then he would have begun: ‘From Maalik ad-Daar … and its chain of narration is authentic.’ But he said it in the way that he did to draw attention to the fact that there was something requiring investigation in it. The scholars say this for various reasons. From these reasons is that they may not have been able to find a biography for some narrator(s) and therefore they would not permit themselves to pass a ruling of authenticity without certainity and cause others to think it authentic and to use it as a proof. So what they would rather do in such a case is to quote the part requiring further examination, which is what al-Haafidh (rahimahullah) did here. It is also as if he indicates the fact that Abu Saalih as-Samaan is alone in reporting from Maalik ad-Daar, or that he is unknown, and Allah knows best. So this is a very fine point of knowledge which will be realized only by those having experience in this field. What we have said is also aided by the fact that al-Haafidh al-Mundhiree reports another story from the narration of Maalik ad-Daar, from ‘Umar in at-Targheeb (2/41-42) and says after it: ‘at-Tabaraanee reports it in al-Kabeer. Its narrators up to Maalik ad-Daar are famous and reliable, but as for Maalik ad-Daar then I do not know him.’ The same is said by al-Haythamee in Majma’ az-Zawaa’id (3/125).”


Analysis and Refutation


First objection:


One of its narrators is A‘mash who is a Mudallis.


Reply:

Though A‘mash is a Mudallis, his tradition is popular for two reasons whether its soundness is proved or not:

First of all A`mash is a narrator of hadiths of Sahih muslim Kitab Al-Adab :book 25 ,hadith no .5320 and sahih muslim book 33 (Kitab-ul-Qadr) ,hadith 6391
so will wahabis declare hadith of sahih muslim as daeef too as they did with sufyan thawri in above hadith (in post no 7) who is also a mudallis and narrator of hadiths of sahih muslim and bukhari but was thiqa too so is accepted by muhadiseen

1. A‘mash is regarded as a second-grade Mudallis, and this is a class of Mudallis from whom our religious leaders recorded traditions in their authentic books. Therefore, it is proved that this tradition narrated by A‘mash is accepted. You can also see arguments on Sufyan Thawri [rah] in Above hadith [above post] where Ibn Hajar Asqalani [rah] accepted Hadiths of Thiqa Narrators

2. If we accept this tradition only on the basis of its transmission by A‘mash, as is the practice in the case of third-grade or even lower-grade Mudallis, even then the tradition by A‘mash is likely to retain its popularity as he has copied it from Abū Sālih Dhakawān Sammān.

Imam Dhahabī comments:
“When A‘mash begins a tradition with the word ‘an (from) there is a possibility of imposture and deception. But if he relates it from his elders like Ibrāhīm, Ibn Abū Wā’il, Abū Sālih Sammān, etc., then it is presumed to possess sound linkage (ittisāl) [Imam Dhahabī, Mīzān-ul-i‘tidāl (2:224)]

In addition, Imam Dhahabī has also described him [amash] as trustworthy (thiqah). [comment: please see also the clarification from sidi Abul Hasan on the issue of al-A’mash posted below]

Second objection:

Quote:
Albani [wahabi scholar ] saysAlbānī in his book at-Tawassul, ahkāmuhū wa anwa‘uhū observes, “I do not acknowledge it authentic because the credibility and memory of Mālik ad-Dār is not known and these are the two basic criteria for any authentic narrator of traditions. Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī in Kitāb-ul-jarh wat-ta‘dīl [4/1/213(8:213)], while discussing Mālik ad-Dār, has not mentioned any narrator except Abū Sālih who has accepted any tradition from him, which shows that he is unknown. It is also supported by the fact that Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī, who himself is a leading figure of Islam and a memorizer of traditions, has not mentioned anyone of them who has pronounced him trustworthy (thiqah). Similarly Mundhirī has remarked that he does not know him while Haythamī in his Majma‘-uz-zawā’id, has supported his observation…”


Reply:

This objection is refuted by the biographical details which Ibn Sa‘d (d.230ah) has furnished while discussing him among the second-grade Medinan Successors:

Malik al-Dar: `
Umar ibn al-Khattab’s freedman. He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar. He was known

[ Ibn Sā‘d, at-Tabaqāt-ul-kubrā (5:12)]

In addition, this objection is also cancelled by Khalīlī’s (d.445 ah) comment on Māik ad-Dār:

Malik al-Dar:
muttafaq `alayh athna `alayhi al-tabi`un — He is agreed upon (as trustworthy), the Successors have approved highly of him

Ref :
[ Abū Yala Khalol bin Abdullāh Khalili Qazwini, Kitab-ul-irshad fī ma‘rifat ‘ulamā’-il-hadith, as quoted by ‘Abdullāh bin Muhammad bin Siddīq al-Ghumārī in Irghām-ul-mubtadī al-ghabī bi-jawāz-it-tawassul bi an-nabī (p.9)]

Besides, the biographical sketch provided by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī also serves to neutralize this objection:

“Malik ibn `Iyad: `Umar’s freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, Mu`adh, and Abu `Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and his (Malik’s) two sons `Awn and `Abd Allah…Imam Bukhari in his Tarikh narrated through Abu Salih Dhakwan from Malik al-Dar that `Umar said during the period of drought: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!” Ibn Abi Khaythama also narrated it in those words but in a longer hadith:The people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah for rain for your Community.” The Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go, see `Umar and tell him: You will be watered, and: You must put your nose to the grindstone (`alayk al-kaffayn)!” (The man went and told `Umar.) Then `Umar wept and exclaimed: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”We have also narrated in the Fawa’id of Dawud ibn `Amr and al-Dabbi compiled by al-Baghawi in the narration of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa`id ibn Yarbu` al-Makhzumi from Malik al-Dar: he said: “`Umar ibn al-Khattab summoned me one day. He had with him a purse of gold containing four hundred dinars. He said: “Take this to Abu `Ubayda,” and he mentioned the rest of the story.Ibn Sa`d mentioned him (Malik al-Dar) in the first layer of the Successors among the people of Madina and said: “He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, and he was known.” Abu `Ubayda said of him: “`Umar put him in charge of the dependents in his household. When `Uthman succeeded him, he put him in charge of financial allotments and he was then named Malik of the House.”Isma`il al-Qadi related from `Ali ibn al-Madini: “Malik al-Dar was `Umar’s treasurer.”“

[ Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī, al-Isābah fī tamyīz-is-sahābah (3:484-5)]

Ibn Hibbān has
attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Mālik ad-Dār in Kitab-uth-thiqat (5:384) [COLOR=”rgb(139, 0, 0)”][Mahmūd Sa‘īd Mamdūh, Raf‘-ul-minārah (p.266). Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī also mentioned in his Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (7:226; 8:217)][/COLOR]

Now if Mundhirī and Haythamī insist that they do not know Mālik ad-Dār, it means that they have not asserted anything about his credibility or lack of credibility. However there are traditionists of great repute like

Imam Bukhārī knew him

Ibn Sa‘d knew him

Alī bin Madīnī knew him

Ibn Hibbān knew him

Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī who know him. Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has even [COLOR=”rgb(139, 0, 0)”]mentioned him in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (7:226; 8:217).[/COLOR]

It is shocking to learn that Albānī gives weight to the opinion of those who do not know Mālik ad-Dār and prefers them to those who know him. Albānī has discarded the traditions of Mālik bin ‘Iyād who is popularly known by the title “ad-Dār” while the great Companions appointed him as their minister because they relied on his trustworthiness. He was even given the portfolio of finance minister, an office that requires honesty, integrity and a huge sense of responsibility. On the contrary, Albānī gives credence to the traditions of those who enjoyed a much lower status than Mālik ad-Dār. The following examples support my contention:

Example # 1 of Albani hypocrisy

1. He has pronounced Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī as hasan (fair) in Silsīlat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (1:49). His argument is based on the statement made by Khatīb Baghdādī in Tārīkh Baghdad (14:161) in which he declares Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī as a traditionist of Baghdad.

This statement is quite transparent. Khatīb Baghdādī has argued neither in favour of nor against Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī. His stance is neutral, as he has not tried to establish the stature of his narrations. He has not labelled them as authentic or inauthentic. In spite of his posture of neutrality, it is quite surprising that Albānī has called him fair (hasan).


Example # 2 of Albani hypocrisy

2. Abū Sa‘īd Ghifārī has also been pronounced a fair narrator in Silsilat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (2:298). After stating that he is no longer unknown because two narrators have acknowledged traditions from him, he writes, “So he is a Successor. A group of those who have committed the traditions to memory have verified the authenticity of his traditions. Therefore, ‘Irāqī has declared the traditions attributed to him as authentic (isnāduhū jayyid), and there is no harm in it. This gave me a sense of satisfaction and I felt deeply contented.”

The question is why has Albani tried to discriminate between Abū Sa‘īd Ghifārī and Mālik ad-Dār?


Example # 3 of Albani hypocrisy

3. Sālih bin Khawwāt has also been pronounced credible in Silsilat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (2:436) because a group of people has relied on his traditions, and Ibn Hibbān has mentioned him in Kitāb-uth-thiqāt.

While, according to our research, Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has described him as an acceptable narrator in Taqrīb-ut-tahdhīb (1:359) and has also stated that he belonged to the eighth category of Successors. If an eighth-grade narrator is being described as credible, what justification is there to pronounce a first-grade Successor as un-credible? The discrimination seems to be rooted more in prejudice and due to Wahabi sect biasness of Albani than reason.

Therefore, the silence of Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī is hardly an argument against the unknown stature of Mālik ad-Dār because his silence is based on lack of evidence about the narrator.
Thus the absence of evidence and reasoning does not reflect the unknowingness of the narrator, which his silence neither explains nor indicates towards any definite interpretation. On the contrary, it opposes any attempt to establish the unknowingness of the narrator. There are a number of narrators about whom Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī has remained silent though other scholars have argued about them and the books on tradition and related issues are riddled with similar examples.


Third objectio
n:

Quote:
There is a suspicion of discontinuance between Abū Sālih Dhakawān Sammān and Mālik ad-Dār


Reply:

This suspicion is a fallacy, as it has no basis in reality. In its rejection, it is sufficient to say that Abū Sālih like Mālik ad-Dār was a native of Medina and he has reported traditions from the Companions. Therefore, he is not an impostor and a fraud. It may also be noted that only contemporaneity is an adequate guarantee for the connection of transmission as Imam Muslim has mentioned the consensus in the Preamble (muqaddimah) of his as-Sahīh.

Fourth objection:

Quote:
Wahabis say There is no justification for the soundness of this tradition because it entirely depends upon a person whose name has not been spelled out. Only in the tradition narrated by Sayf bin ‘Umar Tamīmī, he has been named Bilāl and Sayf has declared him as a weak narrator.


Reply:


This objection is also groundless, because justification does not depend on Bilāl but on ‘Umar bin al-Khattāb’s act.
He did not prevent Bilāl from performing his act; on the contrary, he acknowledged it. He rather himself cried and said: ‘my Creator, I do not shirk responsibility but I may be made more humble.’ Therefore the person visiting the grave, whether he is a Companion or a Successor, does not affect the soundness of the tradition. So wahabi objection is irrelevant and doesn’t affects reliablity of Hadith itself in any way.As all narrators of Hadith are THiqa [reliable]

The gist of the discussion is that the tradition related by Mālik ad-Dār is sound, as I have stated in the earlier part of my exposition. Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī writes: “All those people who have made reference to this tradition or narrated it or reproduced it in their books have never labelled it disbelief or infidelity. They have not questioned the substance of the tradition and it has been mentioned by a scholarly person of high level like Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī who has confirmed it as a soundly transmitted tradition. Therefore his confirmation needs no apology in view of his highly distinguished stature among the hadith-scholars.” [Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī, Mafāhīm yajib an tusahhah (p.151). ]

This tradition establishes the following principles:

1. Visiting graves with the intention of mediation and seeking help.

2.
It is valid to visit the grave of a pious dead person during the period of one’s trials and tribulations to seek help from him because if this act were invalid, ‘Umar would surely have forbidden that person to do so.

3.
The Prophet’s appearance in the dream of the person who visited his grave and to give him good tidings, argues in favour of the fact that it is quite valid to seek help from non-Allah and the dead because if it were invalid, it would have been impossible for the Prophet not to have forbidden that person to do so.

4.
Validation of the mode of address “O Messenger of Allah (yā rasūl Allah)” even after his death.

5.
Call for help and the act of intermediation dates back to the early ages.

6.
The holy personality of the Prophet is a fountain of guidance even after his death.

7.
The head of the state is responsible for administrative matters. The Holy Prophet , in spite of being the chief of prophets, did not break the state channel and, as a visible demonstration of his sense of discipline, he commanded the man visiting his grave to see the head of the state.

8
. The man visiting the grave implored his help through the instrumentality of the Ummah. This shows the Prophet’s immeasurable love for the Community of his followers.

9
. Justification for making the Ummah as a source for seeking his help.

10. Justification for making non-prophet a means of help in the presence of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

11. Anyone who strengthens his link with the Holy Prophet is rewarded by his sight and is showered with his blessings.

12.
The Holy Prophet , even after his death, is aware of the weakness of his Ummah or anyone of its rulers and he issues different commands for removing these flaws.

13.
To seek guidance from Allah’s favourites.

14
. The acknowledgement of the Prophet’s commands by the Companions after his death as just and truthful.

15.
Imposition of commands received in dreams on others.

16
. When intermediation was discussed in the presence of ‘Umar bin al-Khattāb, he did not forbid it; rather he cried and responded to it acknowledging it as valid.

17.
‘Umar bin al-Khattāb’s love for the Holy Prophet that he incessantly cried as someone mentioned the Holy Prophet

It has already been mentioned above that Ibn Hajar considered Malik al-Dar RA to be a sahabah when he stated:

“Malik ibn `Iyad: `Umar’s freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, Mu`adh, and Abu `Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and his (Malik’s) two sons `Awn and `Abd Allah…

Sidi Abul Hasan has also brought to light that the Hafiz of Hadith and famed Historian: Shamsud-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) has listed Malik ibn Iyad as a Sahaba in his Tajrid Asma al-Sahaba, which was printed in Hyderabad, India, in the year 1315 AH – i.e. more than 100 years ago.

In addition, Malik al-Dar has been listed as being a Sahabi by Imam Ibn Hajar’s student: Imam Taqiud-Din Ibn Fahd al-Makki (d. 871 AH) in his Mukhtasar Asma al-Sahaba. This has been found from the Al-Azhar manuscript.

Malik ibn Iyad in Tajrid Asma al-Sahaba of al-Hafiz Shamsud-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH)

Title page



Actual scanned page with Malik al-Dar being listed as a Sahabi:



Malik ibn Iyad in Mukhtasar Asma al-Sahaba of Imam Taqiud-Din Ibn Fahd al-Makki (d. 871 AH)

Quote:

Albani Said on Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tameemee
“Thirdly: Even if the story were authentic there would still be no proof in it for them since the man (i.e. who came to the grave) in the story is himself not named, and therefore unknown. The fact that he is named as Bilaal ibn al-Haarith in the narration of Sayf is worthless since Sayf is Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tameemee, and the scholars of hadeeth are agreed that he is weak. Indeed Ibn Hibbaan says about him: ‘He reports fabricated things from reliable narrators, and they say that he used to fabricate hadeeth


Reply and Refutation


firstly Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tameemee is not in Chain of hadith nor is He narrator of Hadith
so Hadith reliablity is not affected. He only reports that Man in Hadith was Hadrat Bilal [r.a] in his book , Hadith is reported from different chains and Sahih narrators already not having him.

Secondly

Here are those who called above hadith sound

Ibn Taymiyyah has endorsed its authenticity in his book Iqtidā’-us-sirāt-il-mustaqīm mukhālifat ashāb-il-jahīm (p.373).

Ibn Kathīr has confirmed the soundness of its transmission in al-Bidāyah wan-nihāyah (5:167).

Ibn Abū Khaythamah narrated it with the same chain of transmission as quoted by Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī in al-Isābah fī tamyīz-is-sahābah (3:484),

Imam Ibn e Hajar (rah) writes in Fath-ul-bārī (2:495-6): “Ibn Abū Shaybah transmitted it with a sound chain of transmission and Sayf bin ‘Umar Tamīmī has recorded it in al-Futūh-ul-kabīr that the dreamer was a Companion known as Bilāl bin Hārith Muzanī.”

Qastallānī has remarked in al-Mawāhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276) that Ibn Abū Shaybah has narrated it with a sound chain of transmission

Zurqānī has supported Qastallānī in his Commentary (11:150-1) and called its chain sound
11/9/09


Thirdly
, the narration with Isnads back to Malik al-Dar are found in Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa and collected before him by Ibn Abi Khaythama and Ibn Abi Shayba as we know. It was also collected with its Isnad by Abu Ya’la al-Khalili in his Irshad. Not one of these Imams of Hadith questioned the text or isnad for its authenticity or it being a route to shirk as the Wahhabi’s think!

Without Isnad, it was mentioned in shorter forms by: Ibn Abdal Barr in his al-Isti’ab and al-Bukhari in his Ta’rikh al-Kabir (under Malik al-Dar) – these two Imams didn’t attack his narration in any form.

Fourthly, Sayf ibn Umar – no doubt he was problematic – BUT, Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqreeb al-Tahdhib (no. 2724) said that he was “Da’eef fil Hadith Umda fil Ta’rikh…” Meaning: “Weak in Hadith, a PILLAR in HISTORY..”

Scanned page

Hence: Since the narration from Malik al-Dar is not a Hadith but an Athar (report) from a Tabi’i – this would be regarded as a Historical report from the time of Umar (ra) – This is why Ibn Hajar accepted it, and I have just been looking a little bit deeper into this and have noted that Sayf’s narration – naming explicitly the fact that the Sahabi who went to the blessed Qabr – Bilal ibn Harith al-Muzani, was also mentioned by these famous Historians and well regarded Muhaddithin:

Ibn Kathir in his al-Bidaya
Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari in his al-Kamil fi al Ta’rikh
Abu Ja’far al-Tabari in his Ta’rikh(see under the year 18 AH)

Hence, since Sayf is reporting this as a Historical report – the likes of Imam ibn Hajar accepted his narration that it was Bilal al-Muzani (ra) – so this is just another ploy by the Wahhabiyya to reject his historical report. If it was a Hadith – then Sayf’s narration would be rejected!

__________________
HADITH NUMBER 7: AFTER THE DEATH OF FATIMA [DAUGHTER OF ASAD]عن أنس بن مالك قال‏:‏ لما ماتت فاطمة بنت أسد بن هاشم أم علي رضي الله عنهما دخل عليها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فجلس عند رأسها فقال‏:‏ ‏”‏رحمك الله يا أمي، كنت أمي بعد أمي، تجوعين وتشبعيني، وتعرين وتكسيني، وتمنعين نفسك طيباً وتطعميني، تريدين بذلك وجه الله والدار الآخرة‏”‏‏.‏ ثم أمر أن تغسل ثلاثاً فلما بلغ الماء الذي فيه الكافور سكبه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بيده، ثم خلع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قميصه فألبسها إياه، وكفنها ببرد فوقه، ثم دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أسامة بن زيد وأبا أيوب الأنصاري وعمر بن الخطاب وغلاماً أسود يحفرون، فحفروا قبرها، فلما بلغوا اللحد حفره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بيده وأخرج ترابه بيده، فلما فرغ دخل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاضطجع فيه فقال‏:‏ ‏”‏الله الذي يحيي ويميت، وهو حي لا يموت، اغفر لأمي فاطمة بنت أسد، ولقنها حجتها، ووسِّع عليها مدخلها بحق نبيك والأنبياء الذين من قبلي فإنك أرحم الراحمين‏”‏‏.‏ وكبر عليها أربعاً، وأدخلوها اللحد هو والعباس وأبو بكر الصديق رضي الله عنهم‏Anas Ibn Malik Ibn Al-Nadr (radiallahu anhu) reported that when Fatimah the daughter of Assad died, who took care of the Messenger of Allah during the years he spent at his Uncle’s home, and she was the mother of Ali bin Abi Talib, he entered her home and sat close to her head and said: May Allah have mercy on you O mother after my mother, and he praised her, and offered his garment to cover her body with it in the grave and ordered to dig a tomb for her. He also dug the tomb and took out the soil by his own hands and then laid down in it and then said: Allah who gives life and takes it and He lives and dies not. Forgive my mother Fatimah the daughter of Asad and grant her ease at her entryway through the right of Your Prophet and the Prophets before me for You are the most compassionate.Ref:► Tabarani in Mu’jam Al-Kabir (24:351) and Tabarani in Mu’jam Al-Ausat Vol 1 Hadith 189► Abu Nu‘aym in his Hilya (1985 ed. 3:121)
This narration is classified as authentic
according to the standards of Imaam ibn Hibbaan and Haakim. [Raf’ul Manaarah pg.147; Maqaalaatul Kawthari]Haafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami [RA] (states) that its chain of narrators is good

[Refer to his footnotes on Al-Manaasik of Imaam Nawawi [RA] pg.500…]


al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami [rah]
is also reported to have said that this narration has a Jayyid Sanad (a good chain of transmission) in his al-Jawhar al-Munazzam.

Imam al-Samhudi
in his Khulasatul Wafa bi-Akhbar Dar al-Mustafa has apparently mentioned that this hadith has a Jayyid Sanad.

Abu Nuaym chains contain Rawh ibn Salàh al-Hàkim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mun) –as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Lisàn al-Mïzàn (2:465 #1876), Ibn Hibbàn included him in al-Thiqàt (8:244), and al-Fasawï considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdoh, Raf‘ [p. 148]).

Al-Haythamï (9:257) said:
“Al-Tabarànï narrated it in al-Kabïr and al-Awsat and its chain contains Rawh ibn Salàh whom Ibn Hibbàn and al-Hàkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadïth.”

I was unable to find Abu Hàtim’s declaration of Rawh as trustworthy reported by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawï in his Mafàhïm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh in his discussion of this hadïth in Raf‘ al-Minàra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abu Hàtim although he considers Rawh “truthful” (sadaq) and not “weak” (da‘ïf), according to the rules of hadïth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator’s purported discreditation (jarhmubham ghayr mufassar).

Mamdoh (p. 149-150) noted that although Albànï in his Silsila Da‘ïfa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh mufassar) yet he himself declares identically-formulated discreditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unacceptable in two different contexts! Ibn ‘Alawï adds that the hadïth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbàs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr –without specifying where –and from Jàbir by Ibn Abï Shayba, but without the du‘à.

Imàm al-Kawtharï said of this hadïth in his Maqàlàt (p. 410):
“It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Prophets, while the hadïth of the Prophet from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï ‘O Allàh, I ask You by the right of [the promise made to] those who ask You (bihaqqi al-sà’ilïna ‘alayk)’* constitutes tawassul through the generality of Muslims, both the living and the dead.”

__________________

HADITH NUMBER 8: WHOEVER GOES OUT OF HIS HOME TO PRAY‏حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن سعيد بن يزيد بن إبراهيم التستري ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏الفضل بن الموفق أبو الجهم ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏فضيل بن مرزوق ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عطية ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي سعيد الخدري ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏من خرج من بيته إلى الصلاة فقال اللهم إني أسألك بحق السائلين عليك وأسألك بحق ممشاي هذا فإني لم أخرج ‏ ‏أشرا ‏ ‏ولا ‏ ‏بطرا ‏ ‏ولا ‏ ‏رياء ‏ ‏ولا سمعة وخرجت اتقاء سخطك وابتغاء مرضاتك فأسألك أن تعيذني من النار وأن تغفر لي ذنوبي إنه لا يغفر الذنوب إلا أنت أقبل الله عليه بوجهه واستغفر له سبعون ألف ملكOn the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, who relates that the Messenger of Allah said:“The one who leaves his house for prayer and then says:O Allah, I ask you by the right of those who ask you and I beseech you by the right of those who walk this path unto you that my going forth bespeak not of levity, pride nor vainglory nor done for the sake of repute. I have gone forth in the warding off your anger and for the seeking of your pleasure. I ask you, therefore, to grant me refuge from Hellfire and to forgive me my sins, for no one forgives sins but yourself.Allah will accept for his sake and seventy thousand angels will seek his forgiveness.”References:

A hasan hadïth of the Prophet according to Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh who showed in his monograph Mubàhathat al-Sà’irïn bi Hadïth Allàhumma Innï As’aluka bi-Haqqi al-Sà’ilïn

► narrated from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï by Ahmad in his Musnad with a fair chain
► according to Hamza al-Zayn (10:68 #11099)

► al-Arna’ut(17:247-248 #11156)

► Abu Hàtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawquf saying of Abu Sa‘ïd himself;

►Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (p. 40 #83-84)

►al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (p. 47= 1:47 #65)

►Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhïd (p. 17-18) [and his Sahïh (2:458?) as indicated by al-Busïrï in his Zawà’id (1:98-99)]

► al-Tabarànï in al-Du‘a (p. 149=2:990)

► Ibn Ja‘d in his Musnad (p. 299)

►al-Baghawï in al-Ja‘diyyat (#2118-2119) and – mawquf – by Ibn Abï Shayba (6:25=10:211-212)

► Ibn Abï Hàtim in ‘Ilal al-Hadïth (2:184)

►Al-‘Iràqï in Takhrïj Ahàdïth al- Ihyà’ (1:291) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth,

► as did the hadïth Masters al-Dimyàtï in al-Muttajir al-Ràbihfï Thawàb al-‘Amal al-Sàlih (p. 471-472) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth,

► Ibn Hajar in Amàlï al-Adhkàr (1:272) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth,

► al-Mundhirï’s shaykh the hadïth Master Abu al-Hasan al-Maqdisï in al-Targhïb (1994 ed. 2:367 #2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudàma in al-Mughnï (1985 Dàr al-Fikr ed. 1:271) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth,

Quote:
The pseudo Salafis [wahabis ]have tried to deem this narration weak due to the presence of the narrator Atiyyah al-Awfi.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani RH said about Atiyyah in al-Taqreeb [no. 4616] -Saduq Yukhti kathiran wa kana Shi’ian mudallisan Meaning: “Truthful, made many mistakes and he was a Shi’ite Mudallis”.Despite that, Ibn Hajar still graded the Abu Sa’id [ra] narration to be Hasan in his public dictation of this Hadith in his Amali, as did his teacher: al-Iraqi in the Takhrij of Ihya lil-Ghazali!

Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh has discussed the allegations in his Raf al-Minara.

In summary:

Atiyyah al-`Awfi is criticised for three matters:

– Tadlees (leaving the name of an intermediatery narrator when narrating ahadith

– inclination towards Shi’ism

– narration of things whose authenticity was contested

[SIZE=2]The Accusation of Tadlees:

Quote:
The accusation is that `Atiyyah heard ahadeeth from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri Radi Allahu `anhu for some time, then he used to go to the Sabai liar al-Kalbi and heard his narrations and (in order to strengthen al-Kalbi’s narrations) he nicknamed him Abu Sa’eed, so when `Atiyyah said, “Narrated to me Abu Sa’eed” people thought he was narrating the ahadith of Hadhrat Abu Sa’eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu whereas in reality he was transmitting reports from the liar al-kalbi.

This accusation depends on a narration of Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri who heard from al-Kalbi (Sabai, forger of ahadeeth) that he said, “Atiyyah has given me the kuniyah ‘Abu Sa’eed”. And the narration of Abu khalid al-Ahmar who heard al-Kalbi say, “`Atiyyah said I have given you the kuniyah Abu Sa’eed, and he said So i say narrated to me Abu Sa’eed…”

Shaykh Mamduh says that since al-Kalbi is a known liar his accusation cannot be accepted and Imam Ahmad relied on Sufyan ath-Thawri for pronouncing `Atiyyah a mudallis and since Imam Sufyan relied on al-Kalbi’s statement, which is inacceptable, the end result is the attribution of this fault to `Atiyyah cannot be accepted.

Inclination towards Shi’ism

al-Juzjani in Ahwal ur Rijal has called him mail (inclined). Shaykh Mamduh says that al-Juzjani is a Nasibi and his statement proves that `Atiyyah was not a Shi’a because if there were even a hint of shi’ism in him al-juzjani would have labelled him a shi’a, since he has only referred to him as inclined towards shi’ism, out of his hatred for Kufi people, this shows that there is no such thing in `Atiyyah.

And what al-`Uqayli has quoted from Salim al-Muradi (?) in Kitab al-Dhu`afa’ and what adh-Dhahabi has quoted from him in al-Meezan regarding `Atiyyah being inclined towards shi’ism is not of benefit in this reard because Salim al-Muradi (?) is not one of the Huffaz or of those opinions are referred to in matters of jarh. And he is himself Shi’i like `Atiyyah al-`Awfi and `Atiyyah is one of his mashaikh so he is far removed from being able to condemn `Atiyyah.

Are are no less then 100 shia narrators in Siha e sitta including Sahih bukhari and Sahih muslim , The simple rule was to see their record and if they were not extreme Rafadis Imam Bukhari and muslim in their Sahih took Shia narrators as well
,
note here that Haani bin Haani hadith are in Siha e sitta sahih hadith and declaired Sahih including by Albani , Now see this
,

List of some Shia Narrators in Sahih bukhari and Sahih muslim Alone
,
Shia narrator # 1: Abbad b Yaqub al Rawajini (D 250 AH)
,
His hadiths are found in

*Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih Muslim [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-salat]
*Sunan al-Nasa’i [kitab al-sahw]
*Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-taharah]
,
Shia narrator # 2: Abd al Malik Ayan al Kufi
,
books having his narrations
,

*Sahih al-Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid]
*Sahih Muslim [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab tafsir al-Qur’an]
*Sunan al-Nasa’i [kitab al-‘iman wa al-nudhur]
*Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-buyu’]
*Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-zakah]

Shia narrator # 3:Abd al-Razzaq al-San ani (d 211 )
,

books having his narrations
,

*Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih Muslim [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-taharah]
*Sunan Nasa’i [kitab al-taharah]
*Sunan Abi Dawud [kitab al-taharah]
*Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-muqaddamah fi al-‘iman]
,

Shia narrator # 4 : Awf b. Abi Jamilah al-’A’rabi (d 146 AH)
,
books having his narrations
,

*Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-‘iman]
*Sahih Muslim [kitab al-masajid wa mawadi’ al-salat]
*Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-salat]
*Sunan Nasa’i [kitab al-taharah]
*Sunan Abi Dawud [kitab al-salat]
*Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-salat]
,
,
There are 100 + shia narrators in Siha e sita ,30 in Sahih bukhari alone , Are these all 100s of hadiths Daeef which are Sahih or cannot be trusted in Sahih bukhari, muslim , and other sunni books ? Many Rafadi narrators are present in Sahih bukhari itself and in this case the Narrator is not evenn Rafadi and hence accepted.

Narrating things that were denied

He narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri Radhi Allahu `Anhu that Rasoolullah Sallallahu `alyhi wa Sallam said

“The people of `iliyyeen will be seen by those below them like you see the brilliant star on the horizon, and verily Abu bakr and `Umar will be in them and being rewarded.”

The main part of this hadeeth is in the two Sahihs from Abu Sa’eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu

“The people of Jannah will see the people in special abodes above them as you see a glittering star remaining in the eastern horizon and the western horizon.due to differences in their stations. They said, “Oh Messenger of Allah these are the stations of the Prophets and those other than them will not be able to reach them? He said, “Why not! men who believe in Allah and affirm the Messengers”

What was contested by Ibn `Adi was the addition, “and verily Abu bakr and `Umar will be in them and being rewarded.”. But this part is also proven and `Atiyyah al-`awfi is not the only person to have narrated this, Imam Ahmad has narrated this in his Musnad vol 3 page 26 and in his Fadhail u Sahabah vol 1 page 69 and Abu Y`ala in his Musnad vol 2 page 416, from Mujalid from Abu Alawdak (?) from Abu Sa’eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu.

Regarding accusation of Tadless against him

It can be dismissed as a narration from the Amali of ibn Bushran – where Atiyya used the phrase: Haddathani – which is a very clear way of transmitting the narration and discredits any claim of Tadlees now for this route in the Amali and hence applicable to all the other simlar versions, bi-idhnillah.

Here is the text from the Amali:

أَمَالِي ابْنِ بِشْرَانَ مَجْلِسُ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ الْعِشْرِينَ مِنْ شَهْرِ رَبِيعٍ الْأَوَّلِ سَنَةَ أَرْبَعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ مَا مِنْ رَجُلٍ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ بَيْتِهِ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ ، فَقَالَ753 وأخبرنا دعلج ثنا جعفر بن أحمد الساقاني ، ثنا محمد بن يحيى بن ضريس ، ثنا ابن فضيل ، ثنا أبي ، عن عطية ، حدثني أبو سعيد الخدري ، قال : قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” ما من رجل يخرج من بيته إلى الصلاة ، فقال : اللهم إني أسألك بحق السائلين عليك ، وبحق ممشاي هذا ، لم أخرج أشرا ، ولا بطرا ، ولا رياء ، ولا سمعة ، خرجت اتقاء سخطك ، وابتغاء مرضاتك ، أسألك أن تعيذني من النار ، وتغفر لي ذنوبي ، إنه لا يغفر الذنوب إلا أنت ، إلا وكل به سبعون ألف ملك يستغفرون له ، وأقبل الله عز وجل عليه بوجهه حتى يقضي صلاته

Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani declared the above narration from Hadrat Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (ra), via the route of his student: Atiyya al-Awfi to be HASAN in his Nata’ij al-Afkar (1/272),

__________________
HADITH NUMBER 9: DEEDS PRESENTED TO THE PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATHMy life is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be exhibited to me, and if I see goodness I will praise Allah, and if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.”(Hayâtî khayrun lakum tuhaddithûna wa yuhaddathu lakum wa wafâtî khayrun lakum tu`radu a`malukum `alayya famâ ra’aytu min khayrin hamidtu Allâha wa mâ ra’aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allâha lakum.)
Proof of Authenticity


References:
►The hadith master al-`Iraqi said in the book of Jana’iz of his work Tarh al-Tathrib fi Sharh al-Taqrib: “Its chain is good” (isnâduhu jayyid)[Al-`Iraqi, Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297)]► The hadith master al-Haythami said: “Al-Bazzar narrated it and its sub-narrators are the men of the Sahih.” [Al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:24 #91)]► The hadith master al-Suyuti declared it sound (sahîh)in al-Mu`jizat and al-Khasa’is.► So did al-Qastallani the commentator of al-Bukhari.

► Al-Munawi also declared, in Fayd al-Qadir, that it is sahîh [Al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir (3:401) only reported al-`Iraqi’s words “Its narrators are the men of the Sahih except for `Abd al-Majid ibn Abi Rawwad who, being retained by Muslim as a narrator and being declared trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn Ma`in and al-Nasa’i,

So did al-Zurqani in his commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya.

So did Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji in his commentary on [al-Qadi `Iyad’s] al-Shifa’ [Al-Khafaji, Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102)]

So did al-Mulla `Ali al-Qari in his, adding: “Al-Harith ibn Usama narrated it in his Musnad with a sound chain.” [ Al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102), referring to the mursal hadith of Bakr al-Muzani]

Ibn Hajar also mentioned it in al-Matalib al-`Alya [Ibn Hajar, al-Matalib al-`Alya (4:22)]

► This hadith also came to us through another, mursal way from [the Tabi`î] Bakr ibn `Abd Allah al-Muzani. The hadith master Isma`il al-Qadi narrated it in his monograph on the invocation of blessings on the Prophet ,

Wahabi Shaykh al-Albani said about it: “Mursal sahîh.“[In his edition of Isma`il al-Qadi’s Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi – Allah bless and greet him – (p. 37), after which he goes on to say that the hadith is weak, as in his Silsila Da`ifa (#979). ] due to obvious wahabi biasness.

► The hadith master Ibn `Abd al-Hadi declared it sound (sahîh) despite his excessive rigor and harshness in his book al-Sarim al-Munki. After all this evidence, does any meddler have anything left to say? The hadith is undoubtedly sound, and no-one questions its authenticity

Shaykh GF Haddad adds to the above in his footnote to the above Hadith:

►Narrated from Ibn Mas`ud by al-Bazzar in his Musnad (1:397) with a sound chain as stated by al-Suyuti in Manahil al-Safa (p. 31 #8) and al-Khasa’is al-Kubra (2:281)

►al-Haythami (9:24 #91)

►and al-`Iraqi in Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297) – his last book, as opposed to al-Mughni`an Haml al-Asfar (4:148) where he questions the trustworthy rank of one of the narrators in al-Bazzar’s chain.

► Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Talidi said in his Tahdhib al-Khasa’is al-Kubra (p. 458-459 #694) that this chain is sound according to Muslim’s criterion

► Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf`al-Minara (p. 156-169) discusses it at length and declares it sound.

► Sayyid `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari (d. 1413/1993) declared it sound in his monograph Nihaya al-Amal fi Sharh wa Tashih Hadith `Ard al-A`mal.

Opposing these six judgments al-Albani declares it weak in his notes on al-Qadi Isma`il’s Fadl al-Salat (p. 37 n. 1).

Hadith narrated though multiple chains [some weak and others strong]

► It is also narrated with weak chains from Anas and – with two sound mursal chains missing the Companion-link – from the Successor Bakr ibn `Abd Allah al-Muzani by Isma`il al-Qadi (d. 282) in his Fadl al-Salat `ala al-Nabi (p. 36-39 #25-26)

► The latter chain was declared sound by al-Qari in Sharh al-Shifa’ (1:102)

►Shaykh al-Islam al-Taqi al-Subki in Shifa’ al-Siqam, his critic Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-Munki (p. 217),

► A third, weak chain is related from Bakr al-Muzani by al-Harith ibn Abi Usama (d. 282) in his Musnad (2:884) as per Ibn Hajar in al-Matalib al-`Aliya (4:23).

Quote:
Albani Said
Al-Albani declared the hadith weak on the grounds that some authorities questioned the memorization of the Murji’ hadith master `Abd al-Majid ibn `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad.


Reply and refutation

But Abd al-Majid ibn `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad was retained by Muslim in his Sahih

declared thiqa by Yahya ibn Ma`in,

Ahmad declared him thiqa

Abu Dawud declared him thiqa

al-Nasa’i declared him thiqa

Ibn Shahin declared him thiqa

al-Khalili declared him thiqa

al-Daraqutni declared him thiqa

al-Dhahabi listed him in Man Tukullima Fihi Wa Huwa Muwaththaq (p. 124) as stated by Mamduh in Raf` al- Minara (p. 163, 167)

Al-Arna’ut and Ma`ruf declare him thiqa in Tahrir al-Taqrib (2:379 #4160)

declared him thiqa by Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his edition of al-Dhahabi’s Mughni (1:571 #3793)

declared him thiqa by Dr. Khaldun al-Ahdab in Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (10:464).

Even if al-Albani’s grading were hypothetically accepted, then the weak musnad narration in conjunction with the sound mursal one – graded sahîh by al-Albani – would yield a final grading of hasan or sahîh, not da`îf.

Albani contradicts himself again

In addition to this, Mamduh quoted al-Albani’s own words in the latter’s attempted refutation of Shaykh Isma`il al-Ansari entitled Kitab al-Shaybani (1:134-135) whereby “The sound mursal hadith is a proof in all Four Schools and other than them among the Imams of the principles of hadith and fiqh, therefore it is apparent to every fair-minded person that the position whereby such a hadith does not form a proof only because it is mursal, is untenable.”

This is one of many examples in which al-Albani not only contradicts, but soundly refutes himself.

__________________
HADITH NUMBER 10: O Slaves of Allah! إذا انفلتت دابة أحدكم بأرض فلاة فليناد يا عباد الله احبسوا علي ، فإن لله في الأرض حاضراً سيحبسه عليكم

When one loses his means of transport in a (deserted) land, he should call: “O slaves of Allah! Help me recover (my transport)” for there are many of Allah’s attendants on this earth. They will help you recover it.

At-Tabarani said in Mu’jamul Kabir (10/267):
Ibrahim Ibn Naila Al-Asbahani narrated to us from Al-Hasan Ibn Umar Ibn Shaqiq from Ma’ruf Ibn Hasan As-Samarqandi from Sa’id Ibn Abi Arubah from Qatadah from Abdullah Ibn Buraydah from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud that he said:

‘The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
10367:
حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بن نَائِلَةَ الأَصْبَهَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بن عُمَرَ بن شَقِيقٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مَعْرُوفُ بن حَسَّانَ السَّمَرْقَنْدِيُّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بن أَبِي عَرُوبَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بن بُرَيْدَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بن مَسْعُودٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:إِذَا انْفَلَتَتْ دَابَّةُ أَحَدِكُمْ بِأَرْضِ فَلاةٍ فَلْيُنَادِ: يَا عِبَادَ اللَّهِ، احْبِسُوا عَلَيَّ، يَا عِبَادَ اللَّهِ احْبِسُوا عَلَيَّ، فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ فِي الأَرْضِ حَاضِرًا سَيَحْبِسُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ‘When one loses his means of transport in a (deserted) land, he should call: “O slaves of Allah! Help me recover (my transport)” for there are many of Allah’s attendants on this earth. They will help you recover it.’

Abu Ya’la has narrated it like this in his Musnad (9/177)
as well as Ibn As-Sunni in Amalul Yawmi wal Laylah (page 162).حدثنا الحسن بن عمر بن شقيق حدثنا معروف بن حسان عن سعيد عن قتادة عن بن بريدة عن عبد الله بن مسعود أنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا انفلتت دابة أحدكم بأرض فلاة فليناد يا عباد الله احبسوا يا عباد الله احبسوا فإن لله حاضرا في الأرض سيحبسه[Abu Ya’la in meshkat Musnad, volume 9, number 5269:]

وقال أبو يعلى الموصلي: ثنا الحسن بن عمر، ثنا معروف بن حسان، عن سعيد، عن قتادة، عن ابن بريدة، عن عبد الله قال: قال رسول اللّه – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: “إذا انفلتت دابة أحدكم بأرض فلاة فليناد: يا عباد اللّه احبسوا، يا عباد اللّه احبسوا؟ فإن اللّه- عز وجل- في الأرض حاضراً سيحبسونها”.هذا إسناد ضعيف لضعف معروف بن حسا

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Takhrij Al-Adhkar (Sharh Ibn Allan, 5/150) after ascribing it to Ibn As-Sunni and At-Tabrani: There is inqita’ (discontinuation) in the chain between Ibn Buraydah and Ibn Mas’ud.


Nonetheless, the hadith has supporting routes which transform it from a weak hadith to a hasan (fair) one which is acceptable and actable on:


Firstly:


A different Chain


What At-Tabrani transmitted in his Mu’jamul Kabir (17/117)
through the route of Abdur Rahman Ibn Sharik whos said his father related from Abu Abdullah Ibn Isa from Yazid Ibn Ali from Utbah Ibn Ghazwan from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said:

حدثنا الْحُسَيْنُ بن إِسْحَاقَ التُّسْتَرِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بن يَحْيَى الصُّوفِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بن سَهْلٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بن عِيسَى، عَنْ زَيْدِ بن عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ عُتْبَةَ بن غَزْوَانَ، عَنْ نَبِيِّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ:”إِذَا أَضَلَّ أَحَدُكُمْ شَيْئًا أَوْ أَرَادَ أَحَدُكُمْ عَوْنًا وَهُوَ بِأَرْضٍ لَيْسَ بِهَا أَنِيسٌ، فَلْيَقُلْ:”يَا عِبَادَ اللَّهِ أَغِيثُونِي، يَا عِبَادَ اللَّهِ أَغِيثُونِي، فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ عِبَادًا لا نَرَاهُمْ”، وَقَدْ جَرَّبَ ذَلِكَ
‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see’ [At-Tabarani added:] and this has been acted upon.[meshkat Mu’jamul Kabir, number 13737]

Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami said in Al-Majma’uz Zawaid (10/132)
: ‘At-Tabrani narrated it and its narrators have been declared reliable …….. [Majma’uz Zawaid (17103)]

Al-Hafiz (Ibn Hajar) restricted
(his comments) on it defects to (pointing out) the inqita’ (and not mentioning the weakness of the narrators) in Takhrij Al-Adhkar saying ‘At-Tabrani transmitted it with a munqati’ (discontinued) chain from Utbah Ibn Ghazwan, as a marfu’ (traceable i.e. to the Prophetصلى الله عليه وسلم) narration’
Secondly:

When Ibn Abi Shaybah related in al-Musannaf (10/424, 425): Yazid Ibn Harun related to us saying: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq reported to us from Aban Ibn Salih that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

( 132 ) مَا يَقُولُ الرَّجُلُ إذَا نَدَّتْ بِهِ دَابَّتُهُ أَوْ بَعِيرُهُ فِي سَفَرٍ ( 1 ) حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ عَنْ أَبَانَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : { إذَا نَفَرَتْ دَابَّةُ أَحَدِكُمْ أَوْ بَعِيرُهُ بِفَلَاةٍ مِنْ الْأَرْضِ لَا يَرَى بِهَا أَحَدًا فَلْيَقُلْ : أَعِينُونِي عِبَادَ اللَّهِ ، فَإِنَّهُ سَيُعَانُ
‘When one of your means of transport or camel flees in a (deserted) land, where none can be seen, he should say “Assist me O slaves of Allah” for he shall be assisted’

This hadith is mursal
(the Tabi’i drops the Sahabi and narrates directly from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). If it weren’t for the ananah (i.e. instead of saying “he narrated to me”, it is said “from him” which creates the possibility of an unknown narrator in between) of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, the chain would have been hasan. Al-Albani claimed it had the defect of being mu’dal (where two consecutive narrators are dropped and not just one as would be the case with a mursal hadith) in his Da’eefah (2/109) [8] but this is incorrect because Aban Ibn Salih was from the younger Tabi’in. And Allah knows best.

Thirdly:


What al-Bazzar transmitted in his Musnad (Kashf al-Astar, 4/33-34):
Musa Ibn Ishaq related to us from Manjab Ibn Al-Harith, Hatim Ibn Isma’il related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

– وعن ابن عباس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال‏:‏

‏”‏إن لله ملائكة في الأرض سوى الحفظة يكتبون ما يسقط من ورق الشجر، فإذا أصاب أحدكم عرجة بأرض فلاة فليناد‏:‏ أعينوا عباد الله‏”‏‏.‏

رواه البزار ورجاله ثقات‏.‏

‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah”’

Al-Haythami said in Al-Majma’uz Zawaid (10/132)
: ‘Al-Bazzar related it and its narrators are reliable’ [ Majma’uz Zawaid (17104)]

Al-Hafiz said in the Takhrij Al-Adhkar (Sharh ibn Allan, 5/151):
The chain is hasan and gharib jiddan (very rare)”; Al-Hafiz, restricting himself to saying it is hasan, shows he considered Usamah Ibn Zayd reliable for there is difference of opinion over him.

Al-Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’bul Iman
on the authority of Ibn Abbas also, but in a mawquf (untraceable) form through Ja’far Ibn Awn from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aba Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas in Shu’bul Iman, volume 1, page 50, number 167:

Arabic is down

أخبرنا علي بن أحمد بن عبدان ثنا أحمد بن عبيد الصفار ثنا عبيد بن شريك ثنا بن أبي مريم ثنا عبد الله بن فروخ أخبرني أسامة بن زيد حدثني أبان بن صالح عن مجاهد عن بن عباس قال إن لله عز وجل ملائكة سوى الحفظة يكتبون ما سقط من ورق الشجر فإذا أصاب أحدكم عرجة بأرض فلاة فليناد أعينوا عباد الله يرحمكم الله تعالى

Quote:
Al-Albani claimed in his Da’eefa (2/112) the marfu’ route had a defect because of the mawquf route since Ja’far Ibn Awn (who narrated the mawquf route) is more reliable than Hatim Ibn Isma’il (who narrated the marfu’ route) so the hadith becomes defective due to the discrepancy while the preferred view is that it is mawquf [meshkat Silsilatul Ahadith Ad-Da’eefah, volume 2, page 161-162:]


This is incorrect from two angles:

1. It is the convention in the science of hadith that when there is a contradiction of whether a hadith is raised back (to al-Nabi, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) or halted, the raised back is given preference in judgement. Al-Imam

An-Nawawi said
in the muqaddamah (introduction) to Sharh Sahih Muslim (1/32):

‘When some of the accurate and reliable narrators narrate (a hadith as) muttasil (connected) and others (narrate it as) mursal; or some (narrate it as) mawquf and other (narrate it as) marfu’; or it is (narrated) mawsul (continuous) once and then marfu’ another time and as a mursal or mawquf another time, then the correct approach is as the muhaqqiqun (verifiers) from the muhaddithun (scholars of hadith), and it is the saying of the fuqaha (jurists) and scholars of usul (Islamic jurisprudence) have said and Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi regarded it correct: That the ruling (of the status of the hadith) is from the one who narrated it as mawsul or marfu’ whether the opposing narrations are from more reliable narrators or from more numerous narrators or from narrators with better memory because this is an addition from a reliable narrator and it is acceptable (ziyada thiqa wa-hiya maqbula).

Ibn Al-Hadi
has clarified this in Al-Tanqih (1/350) as printed in Egypt.

2. Hatim Ibn Isma’il is not alone in narrating the hadith in marfu’ form; rather Muhammad Ibn Ishaq has also done so as has been previously discussed as in the case of the supporting narration of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud as mentioned first.

What should have been said is that Aban Ibn Salih would narrate it marfu’ some times and at other times he did not feel it necessary to narrate it marfu’ as it is seen similarly very often. And Allah knows best.

Therefore the claim of this hadith being defective by Al-Albani because the mawquf would replace the marfu’ holds no weight; he only did so to repel the meaning of the hadith and to dispose of it with whatever means even if it meant going against the principles of hadith
; may Allah forgive.

From what has preceded, it has been acknowledged that the hadith is jayyid (good) and maqbul (acceptable) and that the third supporting narration has a hasan chain itself,

Benefit


Usool of Hadith

When a hadith is mentioned with a da’if chain it becomes acceptable, either sahih or hasan, when the Ummah has accepted it; as for when some of the scholars have practised it like the hadith at hand their action strengthens the report also if two or three chains report the hadith it becomes “HASAN” itself.

Al-Hafiz Al-Bayhaqi said in As-Sunan Al-Kubra (3/52)
after narrating the hadith on Salat al-Tasbih: ‘Abdullah Ibn Al-Mubarak would do it and it has been passed down by the pious and this strengthens the marfu’ hadith.’

A similar statement was made by his shaykh Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak (1/320).

The hadith has been acted upon and practiced by the scholars:

o In Al-Masail and Shu’bul Iman of Al-Bayhaqi, Abdullah Ibn Imam Ahmad said

7697:
مكرر أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أنا أحمد بن سلمان الفقيه ببغداد نا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال سمعت أبي يقول حججت خمس حجج اثنتين راكب وثلاث ماشي أو ثلاث راكب واثنتين ماشي فضللت الطريق في حجة وكنت ماشيا فجعلت أقول يا عباد الله دلوني على الطريق قال فلم أزل أقول ذلك حتى وقفت على الطريق أو كما قال أبي

‘I heard my father say:

‘I did five Hajjs; two on camel and three on foot, or two on foot and three on camel and when I lost my way when walking I would say “O slaves of Allah! Guide us towards the (correct) route” and then I continued a little before I found myself back on the (correct) route’ or as it was said by my father. [meshkat Shu’bul Iman, volume 6, page 52, number 7697:]

After Abul Qasim At-Tabarani transmitted it in his Mu’jam al Kabir (17/117) he said “this has been acted upon” [13]

Imam An-Nawawi said
in Al-Adhkar (p.133) after mentioning this hadith

‘One of our major (kibar) scholars in knowledge related to me that he lost his means of transport, which I presume was a mule, and he was aware of this hadith and said (the du’a) so Allah brought to him his animal immediately.

‘I was once with a group of people and my animal fled and the people failed (to find it) and I said (the du’a) and I found the animal immediately without any means but this statement

Imam Mullah Ali Qari (Rahimuhullah) also in Sharah of Hinsul Hasin writes that our Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) said that:

اذا انفلتت دابة احد كم بارض فلاة فليناد يا عباد الله احبسوا

Translation: If the animal of someone runs loose in jungle, then he should say: O Allah’s servants stop it
He writes under “Ibaad Allah”

المراد بهم الملىكة او المسلمون من الجن او رجال الغيب المستمون بابدال

Translation: It means the angels, Muslims, jinn or men of unseen i.e. Abdaal

Then he writes:

هزا حديث حسن يحتاج اليه المسافرون وانه مجرب

Translation: This hadith is “Hassan” and the travelers are in urgent need of it and this has been acted upon [Sharah Hisn ul Hasin, Al-Hirz al-Thamin, page 378]

Hadith # 5

Translation: Maymuna bint Harith, the blessed wife of Prophet (Peace be upon her) narrates: The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was doing Wudhu for Tahajjud Salaah at the home of Hazrat Maimuna (radi Allahu anha). He suddenly called out three times, “Labbaik, Labbaik, Labbaik!” (Here I am) and “Nusirtu, Nusirtu, Nusirtu!” (I helped you). Hadhrat Maimuna (Radhi Allaho anha) further asked him why he had called out those words”. He replied: “Raajiz (a sahabi from far) was calling me because Quraish wanted to kill him“[Imam Tabarani in Mu’jam as-Sagheer, Volume No.2, Hadith # 968]

The upshot is one who is researching can take two paths in strengthening this hadith:

1. Using the supporting evidences, so this hadith becomes hasan and there is no doubt in this as it is transferred from more than two chains.

2. It is strengthened due to the practice of the Ummah and classical scholars according to Usool of Hadith .

One of these paths (the latter) is stronger than the other (the first).

About sami Anwar Quadri

Join us In facebook :- http://www.facebook.com/Islamtreasure786 Sahih bukhari,Volume 1, Book 2, Hadith no. 15: Narrated Anas RaziAllah anhu: The Prophet sallallahu alihi wa sallam said "None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind."

Posted on May 31, 2011, in beliefs of Ahle sunnah. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. syedakbarhussain

    Reblogged this on Ahlus-Sunnah.

  2. I definitely desired to deliver a quick concept to thank you for the nice tips and hints you’re posting on islamtreasure.wordpress.com . My time-consuming internet appear up has now been rewarded with helpful strategies to exchange with my family and friends. I’d claim that we readers fact are truly blessed to dwell in a helpful community with incredibly some great individuals with insightful points. I really feel really grateful to get discovered the webpage and appear ahead to a lot of additional entertaining moments reading right here. Thanks a good deal again for a good deal of things. best wishes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: