The Hadith Proofs for Tawassul

Tawassul [defined by Shaykh Nuh as "supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High" ] has sadly become a source of great controversy. Not much is available in English in the way of clarifying the issue of Tawassul through the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wa sallam]. As most are aware the "salafis" have labelled this act as 'a means to "shirk"' or in some cases a 'manifest "shirk"'. One book in English I recently came across in clarification of this issue is the following [please click on link]:

The Islamic Concept of Tawassul-Intermediation

The book is quite useful in highlighting the Qur'anic, Hadith and rational basis for this practice.The author often mentions in his notes a reference to a certain text of Sh. Mahmud Mamduh which was kindly posted on Sunniforum by Sidi Abul Hasan [may Allah swt allow us to continue to benefit from him].

Raising the Lighthouse by the extraction of the Hadiths on Seeking Means and Visitation (of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)

It is a fantastic reply to Sh. al-Albani [RH] and co.. Whilst on the subject of Tawassul it may be worthwhile to first post the correct explanation of some of the ayaat quoted by the "salafis" against the ahadeeth whose authenticity we seek to establish in the next few posts.

Imam Shawkani RH [a major authority for the "salafis" due to his stance on Taqlid] says in al-Durr al-nadid fi
ikhlas kalimat al-tawhid: There is no harm in tawassul through any one of the Prophets or Friends of Allah or scholars of knowledge... One who comes to the grave as a visitor (za'iran) and invokes Allah alone, using as his means the dead person in the grave, is as one who says: "O Allah, I am asking that you cure me from such-and-such, and I use as a means to You whatever this righteous servant of Yours possesses for worshipping You and striving for Your sake and learning and teaching purely and sincerely for You." Such as this, there is no hesitation in declaring that it is permitted...

He also says in al-Durr al-nadid:

Regarding what those who forbid tawassul to Allah through the Prophets and the saints cite to support their position, such as Allah's sayings:

"We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer" (39:3) "Do not call on any other god with Allah, or you will be among those who will be punished" (26:213) "Say: Call on those besides Him whom ye fancy; they have no power to remove your trouble from you or to change them. Those unto whom they cry seek for themselves the means of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and fear His wrath: for the wrath of thy Lord is something to take

heed of" (17:57)

These verses are irrelevant. Rather: they support exactly the reverse of what the objectors to tawassul claim, since the verses are related to another issue. To wit: the verse "We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer" explicitly states that they worship them for that purpose, whereas the one who makes tawassul through a scholar, for example, never worships him, but knows that he has a special distinction (maziyya) before Allah for being a carrier of knowledge; and that is why he uses him as a means.

Similarly irrelevant to the issue is Allah's saying: "Do not call on any other god with Allah." This verse forbids that one should call upon another together with Allah, as if saying: "O Allah and O So-and-so." However, the one who makes tawassul through a scholar, for example, never calls upon other than Allah. He only seeks a means to Him through the excellent works that one of His servants achieved, just as the three men in the cave who were blocked by the rock used their good works as a means to have their petition answered.

Similarly irrelevant to the issue is Allah's saying: "Those unto whom they cry..." for it refers to people who call upon those who cannot fulfill their request, at the same time not calling upon Allah Who can; whereas one who makes tawassul through a scholar, for example, never called except upon Allah, and none other besides Him.

The above shows the reader that these objectors to tawassul are bringing forth evidence that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even more irrelevant is their citing of the verse:

"The Day when no soul shall have power to do anything for another: for the Command, that Day, will be all with Allah." (82:19)

for that noble verse contains nothing more than the fact that Allah alone decides everything on the Day of Judgment, and that none other will have any say at that time. However, the maker of tawassul through one of the Prophets or one of the scholars, never believes that the one through whom he makes tawassul is in partnership with Allah on the Day of Judgment! Whoever believes such a thing in relation to a Prophet or non-Prophet is in manifest error.

Equally irrelevant is their objection to tawassul by citing the verses:

"Not for you is the decision in the least" (3:128)

 "Say: I have no power over over good or harm to myself except as Allah wills" (7:188)

for these two verses are explicit in that the Prophet has no say in Allah's decision and that he has no power to benefit or harm himself in the least, let alone someone else: but there is nothing in those two verses to prevent tawassul through him or any other of the Prophets or Friends of Allah or scholars.

Allah has given His Prophet the Exalted Station (al-maqam al-mahmud) -- the station of the Great Intercession (alshafa`a al-`uzma), and He has instructed creation to ask for that station for him and to request his intercession, and He said to him: "Ask and you shall be granted what you asked! Intercede and you shall be granted what you interceded for!" And in His Book He has made this dependence on the fact that there is no intercession except by His leave, and that none shall possess it except those whom He pleases...

Equally irrelevant is their adducing as proof against tawassul:

"And admonish your nearest kinsmen" (26:214)

whereupon the Prophet said: "O So-and-so son of So-and-so, I do not have any guarantee on your behalf from Allah; and O So-and-so daughter of So-and-so, I do not have any guarantee on your behalf from Allah." For in the preceding there is nothing other than the plain declaration that he cannot benefit anyone for whom Allah has decreed harm, nor harm anyone for whom Allah has decreed benefit, and that he does not have any guarantee from Allah from any of his close relatives, let alone others. This is known to every Muslim. There is nothing in it, however, that prohibits making tawassul to Allah through the Prophet, for tawassul is a request from the One Who holds power to grant and deny all requests. The petitioner who makes tawassul only desires to place, at the front of his petition, what may be a cause for the granting of his petition by the One Who alone gives and withholds, the Owner of the Day of Judgment.

Next, a small quote from Tuhfat uth-Thaakireen of Imam Shawkani [translation kindly provided by Sidi Rashad] Fasl salawaat ul-Mansoosaat : Section on the Prayers which have been ordained (By Allah in the Kitab and the Sunnah) ------------Salat ud-Durri wal-Haaja [The Prayer of Need] Hadith number 253: Yutawad-daa wa yusalli rakatayn thumma yadoo/Make wudu, and pray two rakah (cycles) of prayer and then make

the following supplication: Allahumma inni asaluka, wa atawajjahu ilyaka bi-Nabiyyika Muhammad (saw) NabiyyiRahma, Yaa Muhammad innee atawajjahu bika ilaa rabbiy fee haaajatee hathihi lituqdaa lee, Allahummah fashaf-fihu fee/O Allah! Verily I ask you, and turn to you through your Prophet Muhammad (saw) the Prophet of Mercy, O Muhammad verily I turn towards my Lord through you to my Lord in this need of mine, to fulfill it, O Allah intercede/cure this! This hadith has been extracted by Tirmidhi, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak and NisaI, and it is from the hadith of Uthman bin Hanif may Allah be pleased with him. He said a blind man came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: O Messenger of Allah Pray for me! He (saw) said: If you wish I will pray for you, but if you wish, you have been patient and this is better for you. He preferred to be supplicated for. The Messenger (saw) instructed him to make Wudu, and to make a perfect Wudu Nisais narration adds in some of the reports (turuq) to make Wudu and pray two Rakah and then the supplication (as above). It was also extracted by Ibn Majah , and al-Hakim in his mustadrak who stated that it is sahih (authentic) according to the criterion of the two shaykhs (Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari) and his narration had the addition: so he supplicated with this Dua and he arose and was able to see. Tirmidhi said the Hadith is Hasan Sahih (good and authentic) gharib (singular in chain) and we know this narration through this channel only from the Hadith of Abu Jafar and that is not al-Khatmi, these and other Imams have authenticated this narration, NisaI is alone in mentioneing the prayer, but Tabarani agreed with him and in mentions the same in some of his reports (turuq) it reports. In the narration there is dalil (evidence) of the permissibility of Tawassul (taking a means) through the Messenger of Allah (saw) to Allah azza wa-jal with the firm belief (Itiqad) that the only active agent (Faail) is Allah subhanahu wataaala, for verily He alone is the giver and the preventer, what He wishes, is, and what He does not wish never can be.

Anyways, on to the subject of this series! After reading some of the false information posted on certain "salafi" sites, [see, for example, Islamtomorrow] I just wanted to put together all available texts in English on some of the ahadith graded as Sahih or Hasan by the scholars of hadith which are used in conjunction with various qur'anic ayaat and other proofs to prove the permissibility of Tawassul through the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wasalam].

The Hadith of the Blind Man

The first few Ahadith I mention below are graded as Sahih by the reliable scholars of Hadith, followed by a couple of hadith graded as hasan. As far as I know there is no credible opposition to the grading of this first Hadith as Sahih [but then you never know!]. The following is quoted from the article:

TAWASSUL- SUPPLICATING ALLAH THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY

HADITH NUMBER 1 :

THE HADITH OF THE BLIND MAN

Tirmidhi 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."

In his discussion of the above Sahih Hadith Shaykh Nuh Keller states: "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 the following was mentioned by Shaykh Nuh: This hadith was recorded was recorded by Bukhari in his "al-Tarikh al-kabir", by Ibn Majah in his "Sunan", where he said it was rigorously authenticated (SAHIH), by Nasa'i in "Amal al-yawm wa al-layla", by Abu Nu'aym in "Ma'rifa al-Sahaba", by Baihaqi in "Dala'il al-nubuwwa", by Mundhiri in "al-Targhib wa al-tahrib", by Haythami in "Majma' al zawa'id wa manba' al-fawa'id", by Tabarani in "al-Mu'jam al-kabir", 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 ("Adilla Ahl alSunna wa al-Jama'a , 79-83). [For further details click on article linked above]

The Hadith of the Man in Need

From the article TAWASSUL- SUPPLICATING ALLAH THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY

HADITH NUMBER 2:

THE HADITH OF THE MAN IN NEED

Moreover, Tabarani, in his "al-Mu'jam al saghir", reports a hadith from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf that 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 Hadith Shaykh Nuh Keller mentions:

"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." The translator (Nuh Ha Mim Keller), wishing to verify the matter further, to the hadith with its chain of narrators to hadith specialist Sheikh Shu'ayb Arna'ut, who after examining it, agreed that it was rigorously authenticated (sahih) as Tabarani indicated, a judgement which was also confirmed to the translator by 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."

Hadith 2: Abdullah al-Ghumari's Reply to al-Albani and His Follower

The following is a short excerpt from the document that was attached in full HERE [for notes and a very useful introduction to the work please click on attachment in the link provided]. The article is a very useful scholarly response to the objections raised by Sh. al-Albani RH and his follower Albaniites.

Below the translated excerpt you will also find further useful elaboration on what Abdullah al-Ghumari mentioned in his response to al-Albani.

By [the grace of] the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate, [I begin].5
All praise is Allahs , the Lord of the Worlds. The last word will be for those who fear Allah. Enmity is only for those who transgress. I seek blessings and peace on our master, Muhammad [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] , and on his noble house. May Allah be pleased with his Companions and their Followers. To get to the point, I declare that Shaikh Al-Albani, may Allah forgive him, is a man who is motivated by ulterior purposes and desire. If he sees a hadith 6 or a report ( athar7 ) that does not accord with his persuasion8 he straightway proceeds to foist it off as weak (daif) . 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 alSalafi9who edited al-Mujam al-Kabir 10. He had the impudence to declare a rigorously authentic hadith weak (daif / 11) 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 says.12 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] . I declare that I depend on none but Allah; He is my support and to Him do I consign myself. Al-Tabarani 13 reported 14 From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qsim from Abu Jafar al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: Uthmn ibn Hunaif

A man was going to Uthmn ibn Affn 15 trying to get something done for himself.However, Uthman didnt pay any attention to him, nor did he look after his need. That man went to Uthmn ibn Hunaif and complained about that to him. Uthmn ibn Hunaif said to him, Go and perform ablution (wudu), then go to the mosque and pray two cycles (rakah) 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 Uthmn ibn Affn; whereupon the doorkeeper took him by the hand and ushered him into Uthmn ibn Affn 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 Uthmn had that done for him and then he said to him, I didnt remember your problem

until now. Whenever you need anything come to me. Thereupon the man left him and went to Uthmn ibn Hunaif and said, May Allah bless you, Uthmn wouldnt look after me, nor even pay attention to me until you spoke to him about me. Uthmn ibn Hunaif replied, I swear by Allah that I didnt 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, Wouldnt you rather show patience? He replied, O Messenger of Allah, I dont 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 (rakah) of prayer, then make this supplication (dua) . I swear by Allah, we hadnt gone away, nor had we remained long time talk when the man returned as if he had never suffered any affliction.
Al-Tabarani declared this report to be rigorously authentic (sahih / 16 ) ; whereas, 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]17; the doubt concerns the [first part of] the story [concerning Uthman ibn Hunaifs instructions to the man who sought the help of Uthmn ibn Affan] which heretics (mubtadiah) 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 reports chain of narration (sanad) is alone in reporting this hadith. Then, Shabibs narrations are not bad (la basa bihi) on two conditions: first, thathis son Ahmad be the one who narrates from him; second, that Shabibs narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid. However, in the present case, Shabibs narration is reported by [three persons]: Ibn Wahb, and Shabibs two sons Ismil and Ahmad. As for Ibn Wahb, extremely reliable narrators (al-thiqah) criticized Ibn Wahbs narrations from Shabib, as they criticized Shabib himself. And as for Shabibs son, Ismail, he is unknown. Although Ahmad also reports this hadith from Shabib, it is not Shabibs report from Yunus ibn Yazid [which (as Hamdu pretends) is what the experts in narration stipulated as the condition for the correctness of Shabibs 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 Uthmn]. Al-Hakim reported the hadith by way Aun ibn Amrah al- Basri from Rauh ibn al-Qasim. My teacher (Shaikh) Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani: Even though Aun is weak (daif), still his version of the hadith (riwyah) [without the story of Uthmn ibn Hunaif] is preferable to Shabibs since Rauhs narration agreeswith the narrations of Shubah and Hamd ibn Salamah through Abu Jaf`ar al-Khatmi[without the story of Uthmn ibn Hunaif]."

The foregoing discussion18 is misleading and distorted in several ways.

First Point
The story [of Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see Uthman] was reported by al-Bayhaqi in Dal ilulNubuwah19 by way of: Yaqub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Said reported to me that his father reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qsim from Abu Jafar al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to Uthmn ibn Affn and he mentioned the story in its entirety. Yaqub ibn Sufyn is [Abu Yusuf] al-Fasawi (d. 177 h) 20, the Hfiz,21 the Imm,22 the utterly reliable transmitter (al-thiqah) 23rather, he is better than utterly reliable (thiqah) . The chain of narration (sanad) of this hadith is utterly reliable (sahih /24)Thus the story [about Uthmn ibn Hunaif] is quite authentic. Other [specialists in the science of hadith and its narrators] also proclaimed the hadith to be rigorously authentic (sahih) . Hfiz al- Mundhiri25 mentioned in his al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib: p. 606, vol. 2;26 and Hafiz alHaithami27 mentioned it in his Majma al-Zawid: p. 179, vol. 2.28

Second Point
Ahmad ibn Shabib is one of the narrators that al-Bukhari29 depended on; al-Bukhri reported hadith from Ahmad ibn Shabib both in his Sahih and in his al-Adab al-Mufrad. Abu Htim al-Rzi30 also declared him to be utterly reliable (thiqah) , and both he and Abu Zurah wrote down his hadith.31 Ibn Adi32 mentioned that the people of Basrah [that is, the experts in the science of hadith and criticism] considered him to be utterly reliable (thiqah) and Ali al-Madini33 wrote down his hadith. Ahmads father, Shabib ibn Said al-Tamimi al-Habati al-Basri34 is also one of the narrators whom al-Bukhari depended on in both his Sahih and his al-Adab al-Mufrad.Those who considered Shabib to be thiqah include: Abu Zurah, Abu Hatim, al-Nisi, al-Dhuhali, al-Draqutni , and al-Tabarani35. Abu Hatim related that Shabib had in his keeping the books of Yunus ibnYazid, and he said that Shabib was reliable (salih) in hadith and that there was nothing wrong with him (l basa bihi / 36 ) . Ibn Adi said: Shabib had a copy of the book37 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). 39 The foregoing relates to the authentication (tadil) of Shabib.40 As you notice there is no stipulation that his narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih) .

Rather, Ibn al-Madini affirms that his book was authentic,41 while Ibn Adi confined himself to commenting about Shabibs copy of al-Zuhris book not intending to intimate anything about the rest of Shabibs narrations. So what AlAlbni claims [namely, that Shabibs 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 Shabibs 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 /42) although Shabib did not narrate this hadith from Yunus by way of al-Zuhri. Rather, he related it from Rauh ibn al-Qsim. 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 Uthmn ibn Hunaif], the story is doubtful (daif ) . This is another example of Al-Albnis 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 he 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 Uthmn ibn Hunaif] in al-Bayhaqis report is an extraordinary Imm: Yaqub ibn Sufyn. Abu Zurah al-Dimashqi says about him: Two men from the noblest of mankind came to us; one of them, Yaqub ibn Sufyn 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-Albni s declaring the narration of Aun, which in fact is weak, to be better than the narration of those who narrated the story [of Uthmn ibn Hunaif] is a third aspect of Al-Albanis 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 Said al-Habati has given the same hadith by way of Rauh ibn al-Qsim with some additions to the text (matn ) and the chain of narrators (isnd) . The decision in the matter is Shabibs since he is utterly reliable (thiqah) and trustworthy (mamun) . What al-Hakim says emphasizes a precept which is universally recognized by the experts in the science of hadith (almuhaddithun) 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 didnt remember it.

Third Point
Al-Albani saw al-Hakims statement but he didnt like it, so he ignored it, and obstinately and dishonestly insisted on the superiority of Auns weak narration. It has been made clear that the story [about Uthmn ibn Hunaif] is rigorously authentic (sahih) in spite of Al-Albnis [and Ibn Taimiyahs] deceitful attempts to discredit it. The story shows that seeking the Prophets [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]intercession after his passing away is permissible since the Companion43 who reported the hadith understood that it was permissible and the understanding of the narrator is significant in the view of the holy law (shariah) , for it has its weight in the field of deducing (istinbat ) the detailed rules of the holy law (shariah) . We say according to the understanding of the narrator for the sake of argument; otherwise, in actuality, Uthmn ibn

Hunaifs 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 Uthmn ibn Hunaif himself related] establishes. Ibn Abi Khaithamah stated in his Trikh [which is a genre of writing which deals with the history and reputation of narrators of hadith] : Muslim ibn Ibrhim related to me that Hammd ibn Salamah said: Abu Jafar al-Khatami related to me from Amarah ibn Khuzaimah from Uthmn 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 (rakah) of prayer, and then say: O Allah, I ask You and I approach you through my Prophet Muammad, 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 (isnd) 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.44

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 (alijm al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world,45 he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhri 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 abovementioned 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. 46 Actually, Ibn Taimyahs 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. 47 Another example of Ibn Taimiyahs 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 Alis door [open]. This hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih). Ibn al-Jauzi 48 was mistaken by mentioning it in his collection of forged hadiths, al-Maudut. Hafiz [Ibn Hajr] corrected him in his al-Qaul al-Musaddad: Ibn Taimiyah because of his wellknown bias against Ali was not content with Ibn al-Jauzis 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.49

Fourth Point
In order to conciliate al-Albni, let us suppose that the story [about Uthmn ibn Hunaif] is weak, and that the Ibn Abi Khaithamahs version of the hadith [with the addition: Wheneveryou have any need do like that.] is defective (muallal) 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 (bidah ), 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 heretic50 because he has disqualified a rigorously authentic hadith and precluded its implementation, and that is unlawful (haram). Al-Albni, 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 (nid) 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 51of prayer, and that contains the greeting of peace (salm) for him with mention of him in the vocative form: Peace be upon you, OProphet! 52 That is the very formula which Abu Bakr, Umar, Ibn Zubair, and Muwiyah taught the people from the mimbar53. Thereafter, it became an issue on which there was consensus (ijm) as Ibn Hazm 54 and Ibn Taimiyah affirmed. Al-Albni, because he is prone to schism (ibtid ), violated the consensus and insisted on following an opinion reported of Ibn Masud: Then when he died we said: Peace be on the Prophet (al-salmu al al-nabiyu). Indeed, violating the hadith and consensus is the essence of heresy (ibtid )

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-salm ) and honor (al-salah / 55 ) . 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 (tawtur / 56 and consensus ( ijm ) 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-Albni is perversely obstinate and opinionated, as are the Albaniites, [that is, his blind, fanatic followers].So much for my rebuttal of Al-Albni. As for the person called Hamdi al-Salafi, theres no need to refute him separately because he merely echoes Al-Albni. Another thing which I should establish here is that Al-Albni 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 ulam (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 (bidah ) by forbidding the practice of intercession, and by forbidding people to use the epithet sayyidin when mentioning the name of the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam], and by forbidding them to recite the Qurn 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 (bidah) by forbidding what Allah has permitted, and by verbally abusing the Asharites57 and the Sufis58. [ ......... ] Al-Albnis outlandish and heterodox opinions, which are the result of his impious resort to free thought, his deceit, his dishonesty in pronouncing hadith to be authentic or weak according to what suits his persuasion [rather, than according to the dictates of the facts], his excoriations of the ulam and the illustrious personages of Islm; all that is an affliction from Allah, yet he doesnt realize it. Indeed, he is one of those [to whom the Qurn referred by its words:] who thinks they are doing good; however, how wrong is what they think.61 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. [ .......... ]

---------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a short summary I compiled from various articles posted on Sunniforum by our brothers and shuyukh pertaining to the narrator found in the Hadith of the Man in Need by the name of Shabib.

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, and brother [in his summary of Shaykh Mamduh] which was posted on SF regarding the reliability of Shabib [Abu Sa`id Shabib ibn Sa`id al-Basri al-Habti al-Tamimi] which is critical to the issue of the authenticity of the Hadith of the Man in Need. [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 Tabaranis version are as follows From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qsim from Abu Jafar al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: Uthmn ibn Hunaif

:2) Imam al-Bayhaqi in Dal ilul-Nubuwah reports the hadith with the following sanad Yaqub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Said reported to me that his father [Shabib] reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qsim from Abu Jafar al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to .Uthmn ibn Affn and he mentioned the story in its entirety

][Take note: Imam Bayhaqis chain does not contain the narrator Ibn Wahb

Here is the exact wording from al-Bayhaqis Dalail (no. 2417) with highlighting of what was mentioned above in point :2 .no

: : : : : : : " " : " : " : " : . .

-The salafis have attempted to weaken these chains due to the presence in it of Shabib [ibn Said 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 al-Albanis 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 [tadil] of Shabib amongst the Ulema: [My thanks to Sh. Abul Hasan for providing me the quotes] Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 4, no. 534) mentioned Shabib as follows:

[ 534 ]

Shabib in Tarikh al-Kabir of Imam al-Bukhari (vol. 4)

[ 2628 ]
Shabib ibn Saeed in Thiqat of Ibn Hibban

[ 13614 ]

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

[ 1572 ]

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

Ibn al-Madini said: Thiqa Trustworthy Abu Zura: La Basa bi-hi There is no harm in him Abu Hatim: Wa huwa slih al-Hadith la basa bihi: He is passable in Hadith, there is no harm in him Nasai: Laysa bihi bas 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 listed him in his Tarikh al-Kabir and made no disparagement on him at all, even though he mentioned that Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib. We also know that Al-Bukhari narrated via him in his Sahih. We also know that: Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1/526) declared Shabib to be Thiqa Mamun 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 MAMUN, 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 Sahihs according to Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh.] Abu Zur`ah, Nasa'i, Abu Hatim.

The foregoing relates to the authentication (tadil) of Shabib.

SECTION 2:

Next, let us look at the made up false claim of the Salafis that only Shabibs 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 Said Mamduh points out in Raf al-Minarah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyrah , pp. 99-100, that the accuracy ( ) of a narrator [which along with integrity (adlah / ) establishes reliability] is of two kinds: accuracy in respect of his memory ( ,)and accuracy in respect of what he has written down (dabt al-kitbah). 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 taweel made by the Salafis from Ali al-Madinis 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-Tadil:

Ibn Abi Hatim says [rough translation] 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 Shabibs narration must be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih).

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-M adini 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 Shabibs reliability namely that it not be Ibn Wahb who narrate from him:

Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil Fil-Du'afa:

[rough translation of relevant excerpts]

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 Adis 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 Ahmads narration of Shabibs ahadeeth from Yunus. But, as you may have noticed in the above notice from Ibn Adi there is no stipulation from him that S habibs 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-M adani 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 tawil based on his hawwa!

If Ibn Adis 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 Salafis is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.

Salafis often mention that Ibn Hajar writes about Shabib, in his M uqaddimah: "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 Shabibs 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 Shabibs 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? Ibn Hajars final word on S habib, 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: "There is no harm [la bas] 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 Ulema have not laid any condition that Shabibs 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. The deception employed by the Salafiyya is clearly evident. May Allah guide us all to the truth. Ameen.

Hadith 2: More Replies to al-Albani's Objections

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.[64] 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 alSunna 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: "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]

The proofs that Albani alone purports to see -- against what the majority understand -- are characteristic of the "Salafi" method. As the scholars who debate them well know, the "Salafi" method consists in a lack of method in and a nonrecognition 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 "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."[66]

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]

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 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 You" are 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![68] 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. 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 ]

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,[69] Imam al-Shafi`i,[70] Imam Ahmad,[71] Ibrahim al-Harbi, and al-Shawkani as we have already seen, and that of Ibn alJawzi, Nawawi, Ibn al-Humam, and Ibn al-Qayyim as we see below.

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]

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.[72] The importance of this remark does not lie in the veracity of the hadith, which is a separate discussion -- and Ibn alJawzi clearly considers it authentic -- but 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. 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? About the hadith of the man in need which we have already cited in full earlier, Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa`i wrote in his rebuttal to a "Salafi" critic entitled "The Evidence of the Sunni Community" (Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a): "This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the validity of tawassul through the dead"; and Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid (1910-1969) has written in his "Rebuttals of Falsehoods" (Rudud `ala abatil): "As for calling upon the righteous (when they are physically absent, as in the words Ya Muhammad in the hadiths of `Uthman Ibn Hunayf), tawassul to Allah Most High through them is permissible, the supplication (du`a) being to Allah Most Glorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility. Those who call on them intending tawassul cannot be blamed."[73] Are Shaykh al-Sayyid Yusuf al-Rifa`i, Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid, and Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Ghumari not also Arabs who know very well the meaning of 'tawassul' in the Arabic Language? 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!

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 asSaheehah (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]

... 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' (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.Shaikh al-Ghumaaree[74] is ignorant of this or pretends to be, since he says in 'al-Misbaah' ([p.] 24), '"... If you wish I will make du'aa for you", means, "if you wish I will teach you a du'aa which you can make and will repeat it to you," this explanation is binding so that the start of the hadeeth agrees with its end.'I say: this explanation is futile due to many reasons, from them that the blind man asked him (SAW) to make du'aa for him, not to teach him a du'aa, and since his (SAW) saying to him, 'And if you wish I will make du'aa' was an answer to his

request, it was then definitely a request for du'aa, and this has to be, and this is the meaning which agrees with the end of the hadeeth, which is why we find that al-Ghumaaree does not try to explain his saying at the end, 'O Allaah accept him as a supplicant for me, and accept my supplication for him (to be accepted for me),' since this clearly shows that his tawassul was through the du'aa of the Prophet (SAW) as we have shown in what has preceded. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 70-71]

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.

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]

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 (alhamdu 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.[76]

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:

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.[78] 3. It is further disproved by Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's biographical notice on Malik al-Dar in his al-Isaba fi tamyiz alsahaba: 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."[79] 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 altawassul 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 alMundhiri 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.[80]

A REFUTATION OF ALBANIFROM 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.[81] Nawawi 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 Oftreturning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord..."[82] 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. 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. 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. And 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? That from what the Prophet (SAW) taught the blind man was, 'And accept my supplication [shafaa'ah] for him'... This sentence is an authentic part of the hadeeth, it is reported by Ahmad and al-Haakim who authenticated it with adhDhahabee agreeing. And it alone is a decisive proof that taking the hadeeth to refer to tawassul by his person is futile, that being the position of some recent writers - and it seems that they realise this point and therefore do not mention this sentence at all - which shows how far they can be trusted in reporting narrations. And close to this is their quoting the previous sentence, 'O Allaah accept his shafaa'ah for me', as a proof for tawassul by his person - but as for explaining how it shows that then they do not explain that to the readers, since one not having something cannot give it to others. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

The proof for tawassul through the Prophet's person does not lie in the particular part of the du`a which says "O Allah accept his shafa`a for me" but in the du`a as a whole, as has been shown above.Albani's contempt and mistrust of the scholars whose view invalidates his typifies his tendency to disrespect persons on the basis of his disagreement and that is the general tendency of his admirers also. What can be meant by his phrase "some recent writers"? Are Nawawi and Ibn al-Jawzi, who respectively state that tawassul is through the Prophet's person and status, "recent writers"? The only "recent writer" here is Albani himself.

'i.e. accept my shafaa'ah for him, i.e. accept my du'aa that you accept his 'shafaa'ah', i.e. his du'aa that You restore my sight.' And it is not possible to understand anything but this from this sentence.[ Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

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. This is why you find the opponents feigning ignorance of it and not making mention of it since it demolishes their building from the foundations and tears down it's walls, and when they hear it you will see them looking at you like one in a swoon. This is because they (think that they) understand the shafaa'ah of the Messenger (SAW) for the blind man, but what can the blind man's shafaa'ah for the Messenger (SAW) mean? They have no answer for that at all. And the fact that they percieve this nullifies their misinterpretation is that you will not find a single one of them using it in practice, i.e. supplicating, 'O Allaah accept Your Prophets' shafaa'ah for me and my shafaa'ah for him.' [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

The blind man was merely blind in the eyes, but Allah spoke of those who are blind-hearted and this is a graver illness.The shafa`a of the Messenger for the blind man benefits the blind man. The shafa`a of the blind man for the Messenger benefits the blind man also! The former is the Prophet's request on behalf of the blind man. The latter is the blind's man request that he be given permission to have the Prophet request for him. It is very clear, but it seems Albani ekes out his argument only in order to confuse the issue, just as he shuffled the lexical meanings of tawassul and shafa`a.

the saying of the blind man in his du'aa, 'O Allaah I ask You and turn to You by means of your Prophet Muhammad (SAW)' means, 'I seek a means of nearness to You by means of the du'aa of your Prophet', with the governing word [i.e. du'aa] omitted - and this is something well known in the language - as occurs in the saying of Allaah, 'the town and caravan...' (12:82), i.e. 'the PEOPLE of the town, and the COMPANIONS of the caravan..' [with the governing words PEOPLE and CARAVAN omitted]. And we and the opponents agree upon that, i.e. that we have to come up with the governing word which has been omitted. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

The above is a good illustration of Albani's method of narrowing down the outward sense of the du`a, which is: "I am turning to You by means of your Prophet" to a specific sense: "I am turning to You by means of your Prophet's du`a." In order to achieve this he comes up with terms that are not in the hadith -- "by means of the du`a" -- and he dictates that they are the governing terms around which the sole meaning of the hadith revolves -- that is: Albani's meaning.

And in our view it is the same case as with the du'aa of Umar and his tawassul by means of al-Abbaas - either it is taken to be, 'I turn to You by means of the (status) of Your Prophet', and 'O Muhammad I turn by your (person) or your (position) to my Lord' - as they claim - or to be, 'I turn to you by means of the (du'aa) of Your Prophet', and, 'O Muhammad I Turn to you by your (du'aa) to my Lord' - which is our saying. And one of these must be preferred due to a proof which shows it. So as for their saying that the missing governing word is (status/position) then they have no

proof for it, neither in this or any other hadeeth, since there is nothing mentioned along with it which suggests or states any mention of (status) or indicates it at all. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

This is perhaps the greatest fallacy in his entire argument, since in making it he completely ignores the countless verses and hadiths which show the Prophet's tremendous status, including his own explicit statements that he is the Master of the children of Adam and the noblest of them in Allah's sight, and the ijma` of Muslims concerning his praiseworthy station. Just as they have nothing from the Qur'an and Sunnah, or from the practice of the Companions where there is tawassul by anyone's status. So this preferred view of theirs has nothing to support it and so is rendered baseless and not taken into any further consideration. As for our view then it is supported by many proofs which have preceded. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

The lexical "proof" has been rejected as shafa`a is not the same as tawassul. And the "proof" that the wasila is purely the Prophet's du`a has been rejected, as it was shown that the wasila is the Prophet himself in addition to the du`a which he taught the blind man, and the du`a which he himself made on his behalf. And I also say: Even if it were correct that the blind man sought to make tawassul by his (SAW) person, then it would be something particular to him, not something shared by the rest of the Prophets and the pious. And joining them in it along with him is something not acceptable, since he (SAW) was the leader and the most noble of them all, so it could have been something which Allaah particularised him like many others reported in authentic narrations, and matters of particularised qualities are not within the scope of analogy. So he who thinks that the blind man's tawassul to Allaah was by means of his (SAW) person - then he should halt at that and not add others to it, as is reported from Imaam Ahmad and Shaikh al-Izz bin abdis-Salaam (RH). [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

One goes to one's nearest means among the salihin or saintly people, as is established by `Umar's tawassul through al`Abbas the Prophet's uncle. This is not only permissible but recommended by all Four Schools. As for Imam Ahmad, he made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a as has been reported, nor did he try, unlike Albani, to alter the modality of the tawassul or its meaning. Note that Albani moved from denying that the tawassul can be made through the Prophet's person to accepting it, then denying that it be made by other than the blind man, then accepting it, and finally denying that it be made through other than the Prophet! If it were forbidden to seek the Prophet's person as a means for obtaining cure and blessings in this life, then why did the Companions and the Followers seek such blessings through the hair of the Prophet, his minbar, his sweat, his saliva, his grave, and other items which we shall not mention? If one cannot deny the benefit derived by a mere particle of the Prophet's body long after his time, they surely one cannot deny the benefit derived by his noble person -- except one whom Allah has deprived of true understanding, such as those who insist on denying even when the proofs are brought right under their nose. And Allah knows best.
NOTES :

[The article above was excerpted from www.sunnah.org] [64]M . Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings, trans. Dawud Burbank (Birmingham: al-Hidaayah, 1995). [65]al-Albani, At-Tawassul p. 38. [66]Bukhari, M uslim, Abu Dawud, and Ahmad. [67]Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba 4:220 #5427. [68]Nawawi, al-Adhkar (Ta'if: M aktabat al-mu'ayyad, 1408/1988) p. 239 #562. [69]Imam M alik said to al-M ansur inside the Prophet's M osque in M adina: "Face him [the Prophet] and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi)." 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-M awahib al-laduniyya, Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik, and Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat alzuwwar. 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." [70]Imam Shafi`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. [71]As reported by `Ala' al-Din al-M ardawi 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] [72]Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Wafa (Beirut: dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1408/1988), p. 365. [73]Both quoted in The Reliance of the Traveller p. 935-940. [74]`Abd Allah ibn M uhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, a muhaddith and Sufi shaykh from M orocco and the shaykh of Hasan `Ali alSaqqaf. [75]Related by Bukhari. Cf. Nawawi's Forty hadiths #16. [76]Haythami says in M ajma` al-zawa'id (9:24 #91): "al-Bazzar relates it and its sub-narrators are all sound (rijaluhu rijal al-sahih)." Qadi `Iyad cites it in al-Shifa (1:56 of the Amman edition). Suyuti said in his M anahil al-safa fi takhrij ahadith al-shifa (Beirut 1988/1408) p. 31 (#8): "Ibn Abi Usama cites it in his M usnad from the hadith of Bakr ibn `Abd Allah al-M uzani, and al-Bazzar from the hadith of Ibn M as`ud with a sound (sahih) chain." Ibn al-Jawzi mentions it through Bakr and then again through Anas ibn M alik in the penultimate chapter of the penultimate section of al-Wafa, and also mentions the version through Aws ibn Aws with a sound chain: "The actions of human beings are shown to me every Thursday on the night of (i.e. preceding) Friday." See also Fath al-bari 10:415, al-M undhiri's al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib 3:343, and M usnad Ahmad 4:484. [77]Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat 5:12. [78]Abu Ya`la al-Khalil ibn `Abd Allah al-Khalili al-Qazwini, Kitab al-irshad fi ma`rifat `ulama' al-hadith, ed. M uhammad Said ibn Umar Idris, 1st ed., 3 vols. (Riyad : M aktabat al-Rushd, 1989), as quoted in `Abd Allah al-Ghumari, Irgham al-mubtadi` al-ghabi bi jawaz altawassul bi al-nabi, ed. Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf, 2nd ed. (`Amman: Dar al-imam al-Nawawi, 1412/1992) p. 9. [79]Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (Calcutta 1853 ed.) 6:164 #8350. [80] Saqqaf then mentions the above references. See his preface to al-Ghumari, Irgham al-mubtadi` p. 7-9. [81]Nawawi, al-Adhkar (Ta'if ed.) p. 262. [82]Nawawi, al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj (Damascus: Dar ibn Khaldun, n.d.) p. 144. See also a similar passage in Nawawi's M ajmu` (8:212f.). [83]Narrated by Ibn Hajar in al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-sahaba (Calcutta, 1853) 1:72 under "Anas ibn M alik."

Narration of Malik al-Dar

HADITH NUMBER 3:

NARRATION OF MALIK AL-DAR

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

Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih;[25] Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-bari.[26] He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar's treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari's naming of the chapter "The people's request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought." He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.[27]"

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: [kindly provided by Sidi Abul Hasan]

From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH) >> << << * 31380 : : : : " : " : * From Imam al-Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7/47)

 << << << >> * : 4792 : : , . : . : * )413-313/1( From al-Irshad fi Ma'rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili >> : , , , , , , , . , , : : : . , , , , , , : , : , : " , , : , " . : , : , : , )601/7( Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya

: : : . .: . : . : . : )484/3( Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba - :472[ [2638

 . )594/2( Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari

- - " : . : " . :Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Istiab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said --------------------------------------------------:Sidi Abul Hasan goes on to comment "Note: All of these Imams narrated it and not one of them weakened it let alone said it leads to Shirk as some of the !innovators of this age claimed 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 Let the pseudo-Salafiyya take note - that this is the ruling of ibn Kathir in 2 places, and he was associated with Ibn ".Taymiyya

Hadith 3: Response to al-Albani's Objections

Shaykh al-Albani [RH]: "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 adDaar ... 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 alHaythamee in Majma' az-Zawaa'id (3/125)."

THE RESPONSE:
Excerpted from Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri's book: Islamic Concept of Intermediation [slight editing by me]

Mlik ad-Dr has related: The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of Umar (bin al-Khattb). Then a Companion walked up to the Prophets grave and said, O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Community who is in dire straits. Then the Companion saw the Prophet in a dream. The Prophet said to him, Go over to Umar, give him my regards and tell him that the rain will come to you. And tell Umar that he should be on his toes, he should be on his toes, (he should remain alert). Then the Companion went over to see Umar and passed on to him the tidings. On hearing this, Umar broke into a spurt of crying. He said, O Allah, I exert myself to the full until I am completely exhausted.[26]

Ibn Kathr has confirmed the soundness of its transmission in al-Bidyah wan-nihyah (5:167). Ibn Ab Khaythamah narrated it with the same chain of transmission as quoted by Ibn Hajar Asqaln in al-Isbah f tamyz-is-sahbah (3:484), while the latter writes in Fath-ul-br (2:495-6): Ibn Ab Shaybah transmitted it with a sound chain of transmission and Sayf bin Umar Tamm has recorded it in al-Futh-ul-kabr that the dreamer was a Companion known as Bill bin Hrith Muzan. Qastalln has remarked in al-Mawhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276) that Ibn Ab Shaybah has narrated it with a sound chain of transmission while Zurqn has supported Qastalln in his Commentary (11:150-1). It is quite surprising that some people have tried to dub even this soundly transmitted tradition as weak and, therefore, lacking the sinews to face a rigorously probing analysis, though this is far from the truth. They have marshalled in their favour the following objections:

First objection: One of its narrators is Amash who is a Mudallis. Reply:

Though Amash is a Mudallis, his tradition is popular for two reasons whether its soundness is proved or not:1. Amash 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 Amash is accepted.2. If we accept this tradition only on the basis of its transmission by Amash, as is the practice in the case of third-grade or even lower-grade Mudallis, even then the tradition by Amash is likely to retain its popularity as he has copied it from Ab Slih Dhakawn Sammn. Imam Dhahab comments: When Amash 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 Ibrhm, Ibn Ab Wil, Ab Slih Sammn, etc., then it is presumed to possess sound linkage (ittisl).[27] In addition, Imam Dhahab has also described him as trustworthy (thiqah). [comment: please see also the clarification from sidi Abul Hasan on the issue of al-A'mash posted below]

Second objection:
Albn in his book at-Tawassul, ahkmuh wa anwauh observes, I do not acknowledge it authentic because the credibility and memory of Mlik ad-Dr is not known and these are the two basic criteria for any authentic narrator of traditions. Ibn Ab Htim Rz in Kitb-ul-jarh wat-tadl [4/1/213(8:213)], while discussing Mlik ad-Dr, has not mentioned any narrator except Ab Slih who has accepted any tradition from him, which shows that he is unknown. It is also supported by the fact that Ibn Ab Htim Rz, 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 Mundhir has remarked that he does not know him while Haytham in his Majma-uz-zawid, has supported his observation

Reply:
This objection is refuted by the biographical details which Ibn Sad (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. [28] In addition, this objection is also cancelled by Khalls (d.445 ah) comment on Mik ad-Dr: Malik al-Dar: muttafaq `alayh athna `alayhi al-tabi`un -- He is agreed upon (as trustworthy), the Successors have approved highly of him [29] Besides, the biographical sketch provided by Ibn Hajar Asqaln 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...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."" [30] Ibn Hibbn has attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Mlik ad-Dr in Kitb-uth-thiqt (5:384).[31] Now if Mundhir and Haytham insist that they do not know Mlik ad-Dr, it means that they have not asserted anything about his credibility or lack of credibility. However there are traditionists of great repute like Imam Bukhr, Ibn Sad, Al bin Madn, Ibn Hibbn and Ibn Hajar Asqaln who know him. Ibn Hajar Asqaln has even mentioned him in Tahdhb-uttahdhb (7:226; 8:217). It is shocking to learn that Albn gives weight to the opinion of those who do not know Mlik ad-Dr and prefers them to those who know him. Albn has discarded the traditions of Mlik bin Iyd who is popularly known by the title ad-Dr 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, Albn gives credence to the traditions of those who enjoyed a much lower status than Mlik ad-Dr. The following examples support my contention: 1. He has pronounced Yahy bin Uryn Haraw as hasan (fair) in Silslat-ul-ahdth-is-sahhah (1:49). His argument is based on the statement made by Khatb Baghdd in Trkh Baghdad (14:161) in which he declares Yahy bin Uryn Haraw as a traditionist of Baghdad. This statement is quite transparent. Khatb Baghdd has argued neither in favour of nor against Yahy bin Uryn Haraw. 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 Albn has called him fair (hasan). 2. Ab Sad Ghifr has also been pronounced a fair narrator in Silsilat-ul-ahdth-is-sahhah (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, Irq has declared the traditions attributed to him as authentic (isnduh 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 he tried to discriminate between Ab Sad Ghifr and Mlik ad-Dr? 3. Slih bin Khawwt has also been pronounced credible in Silsilat-ul-ahdth-is-sahhah (2:436) because a group of people has relied on his traditions, and Ibn Hibbn has mentioned him in Kitb-uth-thiqt. While, according to our research, Ibn Hajar Asqaln has described him as an acceptable narrator in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (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 than reason. Therefore, the silence of Ibn Ab Htim Rz is hardly an argument against the unknown stature of Mlik ad-Dr 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 Ab Htim Rz has remained silent though other scholars have argued about them and the books on tradition and related issues are riddled with similar examples.

Third objection: There is a suspicion of discontinuance between Ab Slih Dhakawn Sammn and Mlik ad-Dr. Reply:

This suspicion is a fallacy, as it has no basis in reality. In its rejection, it is sufficient to say that Ab Slih like Mlik ad-Dr 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-Sahh. Fourth objection: 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 Tamm, he has been named Bill and Sayf has declared him as a weak narrator. Reply: This objection is also groundless, because justification does not depend on Bill but on Umar bin al-Khattbs act. He did not prevent Bill 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.

The gist of the discussion is that the tradition related by Mlik ad-Dr is sound, as I have stated in the earlier part of my exposition. Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik 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 Asqaln 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. [32] 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 ones 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 Prophets 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 (y rasl 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 Prophets 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 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 Allahs favourites. 14. The acknowledgement of the Prophets 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-Khattb, he did not forbid it; rather he cried and responded to it acknowledging it as valid. 17. Umar bin al-Khattbs love for the Holy Prophet that he incessantly cried as someone mentioned the Holy Prophet
[NOTES:[26]. Related by Ibn Ab Shaybah in al-M usannaf (12:31-2#12051); Bayhaq, Dalil-un-nubuwwah (7:47); Ibn Abd-ul-Barr, al-Istb f marifat-il-ashb (2:464); Subk, Shif-us-siqm f ziyrat khayr-il-anm (p.130); Al-ud-Dn Al, Kanz-ul-umml (8:431#23535); and Ab Yal Khall bin Abdullh Khall Qazwn in Kitb-ul-irshd f marifat ulam-il-hadith (1:313-4), as quoted by M ahmd Sad M amdh in Raf-ulminrah (p.262).[27]. Dhahab, M zn-ul-itidl (2:224).[28]. Ibn Sd, at-Tabaqt-ul-kubr (5:12).[29]. Ab Yl Khall bin Abdullh Khall Qazwn, Kitb-ul-irshd f marifat ulam-il-hadith, as quoted by Abdullh bin M uhammad bin Siddq al-Ghumr in Irghm-ul-mubtad al-ghab bi-jawz-it-tawassul bi an-nab (p.9).[30]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, al-Isbah f tamyz-is-sahbah (3:484-5).[31]. M ahmd Sad M amdh, Raf-ulminrah (p.266). Ibn Hajar Asqaln also mentioned in his Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (7:226; 8:217).[32]. M uhammad bin Alaw al-M lik, M afhm yajib an tusahhah (p.151). ]

---------------------------------------------------------Some further points to add, inshaAllah: 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.

[ Larger scans can be reviewed HERE ]

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)

Sidi Abul Hasan goes on to mention: The fact that these 3 well known scholars: al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and Ibn Fahd listed Malik al-Dar in specific works mentioning those they considered to be noble Sahaba is a proof against those contemporaries who deem Malik al-Dar to be unknown! Such Imams must have surely possessed some definitive evidence to list Malik al-Dar as a Sahabi.

It may also be mentioned that since Ibn Kathir (the contemporary of al-Dhahabi) declared the Malik al-Dar narration to be authentic, then he too must have considered Malik to be at least Thiqa (trustworthy), if not a Sahabi.

Sidi Abul Hasan also mentioned HERE (slight editing by me) regarding the following statement of al-Albani : "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.'"

.....the narration has a Sahih Isnad as: Ibn Hajar and before him: Ibn Kathir explicitly declared in 2 different books. 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.."

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!
[comment: please read also the related answer to the Fourth Objection posted above] faqir: regarding Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi Sh. GF Haddad also mentioned the following:

QUESTION: I was wondering what you could tell me about Sayf b. Umar. He is a primary source for Imam al-Tabari's material in his Tarikh. What is his reliability and all of the other necessary info. Reply of Dr. GF Haddad: Sayf ibn `Umar Al-Asadi al-Tamimi al-Dabbi al-Kufi (d. ca. 178) met the Tabi`in and was a "chronicler" (akhbari) as opposed to a muhaddith historian and the author of al-Ridda, Futuh al-Buldaan, al-Fitnatu wal Jamal and other historical works. In hadith he was declared weak by Yahya ibn Ma`in, Ya`qub ibn Sufyan, al-Nasa'i, and Abu Dawud. Abu Hatim said he was "discarded, of the same type as al-Waqidi." Al-Daraqutni said he was discarded. Ibn Hibban even said he was accused of hidden heresy (zandaqa) and forgery, charges which Ibn Hajar rejected as outlandish in al-Taqrib where he merely grades him as da`if, while Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his notes on al-Dhahabi's Mughni says: "There is no proof of any zandaqa in him, rather, the narrations from him indicate the contrary."

Al-Tirmidhi narrates from him the hadith: "When you see those who insult my Companions, say: The curse of Allah be on the evil you do!" which al-Tirmidhi then grades "disclaimed" and he describes Sayf as unknown. Al-Dhahabi in al-Mughni filDu`afa' said he was "discarded by agreement" and, in Tarikh al-Islam, said "he narrated from Jabir al-Ju`fi, Hisham ibn `Urwa, Isma`il ibn Abi Khalid, `Ubayd Allah ibn `Umar, and many unknowns and chroniclers." Yet, he is considered not only reliable but "eminently reliable" in history, as shown by Ibn Hajar's grading in the Taqrib: "Da`if fil-hadith, `umdatun fil-tarikh," notwithstanding the acrimonious dissent of Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut and Bashshar `Awwad Ma`ruf in their Tahrir al-Taqrib. Indeed, he a primary source for al-Tabari in his Tarikh, Ibn Hajar in his Isaba, and Ibn Kathir in his Bidaya while Ibn `Abd al-Barr cites him in al-Isti`ab as does al-Sakhawi in Fath al-Mughith. Even al-Dhahabi cites him often in his Tarikh al-Islam. Follow up Questions: [1] I was wondering, sidi, if you could explain the reasoning behind why and how a specific narrator who is discarded or weak in hadith can be considered "eminently reliable" when it comes to history? What were the reasons behind Sayf's weakness in narrating hadith as opposed to historical events? [2] is the identification of the "unknown man" as hadhrat bilal ra by sayf ibn umar al-tamimi in the malik al-dar narration considered a historical report? Reply of Dr. GF Haddad: Those who questioned the `adl of al-Waqidi and Sayf were dismissed.The issue here is dabit vs. non-dabit. You know well we can have honest people who do not have a clue what dabt requires. Imam Malik mentioned that he met 70 extremely honest shuyukh in Madina but he did not narrate from a single one of them because they were nescient in hadith transmission. Now, take someone who does have a clue but given the abundance of things he transmits he makes so many mistakes that he becomes similarly discardable. Now make him so erudite, so researched, so full of gems that it is simply impossible to discard him altogether. This is the case with al-Waqidi and Sayf. These scholars would go to the actual sites of battles and look for descendents and interview them one by one for stories. Hence the large number of "unknowns" in their chains. Yet, when it comes to purely historical details such as whether a certain Sahabi was a Badri or not, they might even best al-Bukhari and Muslim. And yes, the identification of the Sahabi in Malik al-Dar's report as Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani [NOT Bilal ibn Rabah alHabashi, in case that is whom the respondent meant by "Hadrat Bilal"] is definitely a historical clue. Allah Most High be wellpleased with them all. [end of Dr. GF Haddad's words]

Sidi Abul Hasan also mentioned:

These people have also come off with claims that the narartor in the Isnad: al-A'mash may have made Tadlees - that is not clarifying how he received his report from: Abu Salih, since A'mash sometimes made Tadlees. He used the term: An (from) - which is not a very clear way to show how the narration was received by him. The answer to this is the fact that A'mash using "An" - from Abu Salih is not considered as tadlees - because Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih accepted this type of route, as did: Ibn Hajar and Ibn Kathir. Some others have claimed that Abu Salih al-Samman may not have heard from Malik al-Dar - another mistake on their part- for al-Khalili and Ibn Sa'd clarified that he did! Much of what I said has been answered by Shaykh Mamduh - for al-Albani and his colleagues like: Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri and Hammad al-Ansari showed fanaticism and weakness in the Science of Hadith - when they took on the correct grading of the likes of Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar. Also, alAlbani deliberately misinterpreted Ibn Hajar's words - when claiming that Ibn Hajar authenticated it only up to Abu Salih al-Samman!.....

For further details on this narration please consult

Shaykh M ahmud M amduh's reply to al-Albani on his weakening a narration on Tawassul

Allah's Generosity to His Prophet After His Death

HADITH NUMBER 4:

"ALLAH'S GENEROSITY TO HIS PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATH"

Imam Drim relates from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh: The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophets 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.
Drim related it in his Sunan (1:43#93); Ibn-ul-Jawz in al-Waf bi-ahwl-il-mustaf (2:801); Subk in Shif-us-siqm f ziyrat khayr-il-anm (p.128); Qastalln in al-Mawhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276); and Zurqn in his Commentary (11:150).

Shaykh Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik 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.

Hadith 4: 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 alNu`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 alnabi (The coercion of the unintelligent innovator to the effect that using the Prophet as a means is permissible p. 2325): 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 almughith, 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 alDhahabi 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 alBurhan 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 alDhahabi 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 alMiraghi 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 4: Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri's Reply

More on HADITH NUMBER 4 from Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri's book: Islamic Concept of Intermediation

Descension of rain through the Prophets means

Imam Drim relates from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh:

The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophets 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.[7]
The famine gripping the people of Medina ended through the mediation of the Prophets 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 Prophets 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: Ab an-Numn heard it from Sad bin Zayd, he from Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr and he from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh who has reported it. Below are given the allegations levelled against these narrators and a rebuttal of these baseless charges: 1. The name of Ab an-Numn rim was Muhammad bin al-Fadl Sads. They agree that he was a reliable reporter of traditions as is confirmed by Dhahab in Mzn-ul-itidl (4:7): He was Imam Bukhrs 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. Burhn-ud-Dn Halab, 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 Ab an-Numn 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. Dhahab says: Imam Draqutn 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 Nas. Ibn Hibbn is of the opinion that there are many incompatibilities in Ab an-Numns narrations after his loss of memory but Dhahab rejects this opinion by asserting that Ibn Hibbn 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 Draqutn.[8] Irq has admitted in at-Taqyd wal-dh that Imam Dhahab has convincingly rebutted Ibn Hibbns statement. Dhahab has explained it in al-Kshif (3:79) that the change took place before death, but after the change he had not related any tradition. Ibn Hajar Asqaln writes in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (2:200) that Ab an-Numn was a sound narrator and the change came about in his last years. Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik writes, Ab an-Numns mental debility is neither damaging for him nor does it affect his credibility as a narrator because Imam Bukhr in his as-Sahh 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 Draqutn.[9] Besides Imam Bukhr, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Ab Htim Rz and Ab Al Muhammad bin Khlid Zarq have also heard traditions from Ab an-Numn before his mental confusion set in.[10] Imam Drim is one of the well-reputed teachers of Imam Bukhr and other famous memorizers of traditions. Therefore, it was impossible for him to accept any tradition from Ab an-Numn after he had suffered a loss of memory.

2. An objection is raised against Sad bin Zayd Ab al-Hasan Basr, brother of Hammd bin Zayd, that he is somewhat weak because Ibn Hajar Asqaln has written about him in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (1:296), That is, he is extremely truthful but sometimes he commits an error. Dhahab writes in Mzn-ul-itidl (2:138), Yahy bin Sad has called him weak, Sad says that he is not an argument and his traditions are weak and Nas 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 is presented as follows: Dhahab negates it in al-Kshif (1:286). He says that the decrepitude attributed to Sad bin Zayd is incorrect because Imam Muslim accepted traditions from him and Ibn Man has called him authentic and trustworthy. Ibn Hajar Asqaln has described it in detail in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (4:32-3): Imam Bukhr said that Muslim bin Ibrhm reported to us that Sad bin Zayd Ab al-Hasan is extremely truthful and knows the traditions by heart.[11] Dr has reported it from Ibn Man that Sad bin Zayd is a trustworthy narrator. Ibn Sad has also called him a reliable narrator.[12] Ujl comments that he belongs to Basrah and he is a dependable relater of traditions. Ab Zurah said he heard it from Sulaymn bin Harb that Sad bin Zayd is trustworthy. Ab Jafar Drim said: Hibbn bin Hill reported to us that Sad bin Zayd has related to us that tradition and he is truthful and a preserver of traditions.

Ibn Ad has stated in al-Kmil (3:1212-5) that Sad 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 Abdullh bin Muhammad bin Siddq al-Ghumr from Morocco writes in his book Irghm-ul-mubtad al-ghab bi-jawz-it-tawassul bi an-nab writes: Imam Ahmad bin Hambal has referred to Sad bin Zayd as laysa bih bas. It means that there is no objection against him and he is absolutely truthful.[13] Imam Ahmads expression is semantically identical with trustworthiness, which is considered the highest virtue by all traditionists of integrity. Ibn Man also identifies the term laysa bih bas with trustworthiness.[14] The traditionist Ibn-us-Salh in al-Muqaddimah, Sakhw in Fath-ul-mughth, Ibn Hajar Asqaln in Hady-us-sr muqaddimah Fath-ul-br and Nawaw in at-Taqrb wat-taysr have identified laysa bih bas with veracity. Besides, a number of traditionists of the third century (ah), for instance, Ibn Man, Ibn Madn, Ab Zurah, Ibn Ab Htim Rz, Yaqb bin Sufyn Fasw, etc., have invested laysa bih bas with the distinction of veracity.

3. Ibn Hibbn has called Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr as veracious as Ibn Hajar Asqaln writes in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (8:96), Ibn Hibbn has mentioned him in his book Kitb-ut-thiqt. Therefore, Ibn Hibbns acknowledgement of his credibility is based on truth and it is beyond any iota of doubt that Ibn Hajar Asqaln, on the basis of his authenticity, has called Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (2:77), Sadq lah awhm (he is truthful but there are doubts about him). The word sadq (truthful) used by Ibn Hajar Asqaln attests to the veracity of Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr and he has given it precedence over others. Mahmd Sad Mamdh refers to it in his book Raf-ul-minrah (p.258) that Abdullh bin Ahmad, attributing it to his father, commented, Annah ka-annah daafah (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 Abdullh bin Al bin Madn referred to Hasan bin Ms Ashyab as wa ka-annah daafah (and as if he weakened him), Ibn Hajar Asqaln endorsed him by saying: hdh zann, la taqmu bih hujjah (it is suspicion, therefore, it cannot serve as a justification).[15] So this statement makes the veracity of Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr unquestionable. Dhahab has explained it further in Mzn-ul-itidl (3:286) and al-Mughn (2:488). Mahmd Sad Mamdh writes:Ibn Ad has bracketed Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr with Amr bin Mlik Rsib in alKmil (5:1799) and has dubbed him as a recanter narrator. Dhahab has explained it in Mzn-ul-itidl (3:285) and alMughn (2:488) while Ibn Hajar Asqaln has commented on it in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (8:95). Both these hadith-scholars have delinked Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr from Amr bin Mlik Rsib and disproved the linkage forged by Ibn Ad, which has driven some of the traditionists to label Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr as unreliable. These traditionists are not to blame as they have based their deductions on the conclusions drawn by Ibn Ad without any conscious attempt at distortion as has been explained by Ibn-ul-Jawz in Kitb-ul-mawdt (2:145) and by Ibn Taymiyyah in Qidah jallah fit-tawassul wal-waslah.[16] Albn writes in Talq al Fadl-is-salt ala an-nab (p.88): Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr is a reliable narrator as has been endorsed by Dhahab. He has also confirmed this view in another book Silsilat-ul-ahdth-is-sahhah (5:608).

4. A large number of people have taken traditions from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh on the basis of his credibility and the direct transmission of this tradition from ishah has also been established. In support of this contention it suffices to state that Imam Muslim has recorded Ab al-Jawz Awss narration through ishah.

Imam Bukhr says: It was related to us by Musaddad who had heard it from Jafar bin Sulaymn, who from Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr who had reported it from Ab al-Jawz. He said: I spent twelve years with Ibn Abbs and ishah and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur'an about which I had not asked them.[17] Ibn Sad has related another tradition on these lines:Ab al-Jawz has related: I lived as Ibn Abbss neighbour for twelve years and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur'an about which I had not asked him.[18] Abu Naaym has added the following words to the tradition: And my deputy visited the Mother of the Believers (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.[19] According to Ibn Hajar Asqaln, it by no means implies that he never met ishh afterwards. So, the inference drawn by Imam Muslim from the frequency of visits clearly indicates that he had a face-to-face meeting with ishah. Thus when his meeting with 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. Ab Nuaym has confirmed the authenticity of a number of traditions by Ab al-Jawz with the words an ishah (from ishah) in Hilyat-ul-awliy wa tabaqt-ul-asfiy. Ibn-ul-Qaysarn has also reported a tradition from Ab al-Jawz by using the words samia ishah (he listened to ishah).[20]

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 sahh (sound) or hasan (fair). Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik 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.[21] Therefore, this tradition may be relied upon as a viable argument because, according to Imam Nass contention, a narrator may be discarded only when all the traditionists have unanimously rejected him/her.[22] 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 ( ) himself. In their opinion, it is only one of ishahs 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 ishah, nor has such an objection been ever reported, just as no objection has been raised against the person in the tradition reported by Mlik ad-Dr who prays for rain at

the grave of the Holy Prophet (23]. ( ) 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 Shf says, For us, their opinion about us is far more authentic than our own opinion.[24]This tradition clearly establishes the fact that ishah commanded the natives of Medina to rely on the Prophet ( ) in his grave as a source of intermediation for divine blessings. Ibn Taymiyyah has discarded the tradition as mere fabrication. According to him, during the entire life of ishah, there was no such hole in the roof of the Prophets tomb. But this objection is weak as watered tea because Imam Drim and the religious leaders and scholars who followed him were more deeply aware of these details. For example, a traditionist and historian from Medina, Al bin Ahmad Samhd has disconfirmed Ibn Taymiyyah and supported Imam Drims contention. According to him, Zayn-al-Mirgh 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 Prophets 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-mawjahah, that is, the door that opens towards the Prophets face, is flung open and people gather there (for prayer).[25] The Ottoman Turks followed the practice of offering prayers through the mediation of the Prophets 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, ishah. When there was no curtain between the sky and the grave, it started raining.

NOTES: [7]. Drim related it in his Sunan (1:43#93); Ibn-ul-Jawz in al-Waf bi-ahwl-il-mustaf (2:801); Subk in Shif-us-siqm f ziyrat khayril-anm (p.128); Qastalln in al-M awhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276); and Zurqn in his Commentary (11:150). [8]. Dhahab, M zn-ul-itidl (4:8). [9]. M uhammad bin Alaw al-M lik, Shif-ul-fud bi-ziyrat khayr-il-ibd (p.152). [10]. Irq, at-Taqyd wal-dh (p.462). [11]. Bukhr, at-Trkh-ul-kabr (3:472). [12]. Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqt-ul-kubr (7:287). [13]. Imam Ahmads statement has been reproduced by Dhahab in M zn-ul-itidl (2:138) and by Ibn Hajar Asqaln in Tahdhb-uttahdhb (4:32). [14]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Lisn-ul-M zn (1:13). [15]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Hady-us-sr muqaddimah Fath-ul-br (p.397). [16]. M ahmd Sad M amdh, Raf-ul-minrah (pp.259-60). [17]. Bukhr, at-Trkh-ul-kabr (2:16-7).

[18]. Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqt-ul-kubr (7:224). [19]. Ab Naaym, Hilyat-ul-awliy wa tabaqt-ul-asfiy (3:79). [20]. Ibn-ul-Qaysarn, al-Jam bayn as-Sahhayn (1:46) as quoted by M ahmd Sad M amdh in Raf-ul-minrah (p.261). [21]. M uhammad bin Alaw al-M lik, Shif-ul-fud bi-ziyrat khayr--il-ibd (p.153). [22]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Nuzhat-un-nazr bi-sharh nukhbat-ul-fikr f mustalah hadith ahl-ul-athr (p.89). [23]. This tradition will be discussed later. [24]. Ibn-ul-Qayyim, Alm-ul-muwaqqin an rabb-il-lamn (2:186). [25]. Samhd, Waf-ul-waf (2:560).

After the Death of Fatima

HADITH NUMBER 5:

AFTER THE DEATH OF FATIMA [DAUGHTER OF ASAD]

Anas 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, Tabarani in Mu'jam Al-Ausat Vol 1 Hadith 189, Hilyatul Auliya]

Maulana Muhammad ibn Moulana Haroon Abasoomar states regarding this Hadith in his article Islamic Ruling on Tawassul : 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]

Sidi Abul Hasan also mentioned that although he had not directly checked the original sources himself, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is also reported to have said that this narration has a Jayyid Sanad (a good chain of transmission) in his al-Jawhar al-Munazzam. In addition, Imam al-Samhudi in his Khulasatul Wafa bi-Akhbar Dar al-Mustafa has apparently mentioned that this hadith has a Jayyid Sanad.

Sh. GF Haddad responded to some of the objections raised by the "salafis" to this hadith in his article Abu Hanifa &

Tawassul : The first hadth is narrated from Anas by al-Tabarn in al-Kabr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abu Nuaym in his Hilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh ibn Salh concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawz in al-Ilal al-Mutanhiya (1:260-270), Ibn Ad in al-Kmil (3:146 #667), and al-Draqutn in al-Mutalif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn MkUl in al-Ikml (5:15) declared him weak while al-Hkim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa mamun) as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Lisn al-Mzn (2:465 #1876), Ibn Hibbn included him in al-Thiqt (8:244), and al-Fasaw considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdoh, Raf [p. 148]). Al-Haytham (9:257) said: Al-Tabarn narrated it in al-Kabr and al-Awsat and its chain contains Rawh ibn Salh whom Ibn Hibbn and al-Hkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its subnarrators are the men of sound hadth. I was unable to find Abu Htims declaration of Rawh as trustworthy reported by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alaw in his Mafhm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh in his discussion of this hadth in Raf alMinra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abu Htim although he considers Rawh truthful (sadaq) and not weak (daf), according to the rules of hadth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrators purported discreditation (jarhmubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdoh (p. 149-150) noted that although Albn in his Silsila Dafa (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 Alaw adds that the hadth is also narrated from Ibn Abbs by Ibn Abd al-Barr without specifying where and from Jbir by Ibn Ab Shayba, but without the du. Imm al-Kawthar said of this hadth in his Maqlt (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 hadth of the Prophet from Abu Sad al-Khudr O Allh, I ask You by the right of [the promise made to] those who ask You (bihaqqi al-silna alayk)* constitutes tawassul through the generality of Muslims, both the living and the dead.

Whoever Goes Out of His Home to Pray

HADITH NUMBER 6:

WHOEVER GOES OUT OF HIS HOME TO PRAY

On 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."

Regarding this Hadith Sh. GF Haddad states: A hasan hadth of the Prophet according to Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh who showed in his monograph Mubhathat alSirn bi Hadth Allhumma Inn Asaluka bi-Haqqi al-Siln, narrated from Abu Sad al-Khudr by Ahmad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to Hamza al-Zayn (10:68 #11099) a weak chain according to alArnaut(17:247-248 #11156) who considers it, like Abu Htim in al-Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawquf saying of Abu Sad himself; Ibn Mjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunni in Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (p. 40 #83-84), al-Bayhaq in al-Daawt al-Kabr (p. 47= 1:47 #65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhd (p. 17-18) [and his Sahh (2:458?) as indicated by al-Busr in his Zawid (1:98-99)], al-Tabarn in al-Dua (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Jad in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghaw in al-Jadiyyat (#2118-2119) and mawquf by Ibn Ab Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Ab Htim in Ilal al-Hadth (2:184). Al-Irq in Takhrj Ahdth al- Ihy (1:291) graded it hasan as a marfu Prophetic hadth, as did the hadth Masters al-Dimyt in al-Muttajir al-Rbihf Thawb al-Amal al-Slih (p. 471472), Ibn Hajar in Aml al-Adhkr (1:272) and al-Mundhirs shaykh the hadth Master Abu al-Hasan al-Maqdis in al-Targhb (1994 ed. 2:367 #2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudma in al-Mughn (1985 Dr alFikr ed. 1:271). Shaykh Mamdoh in his monograph refuted the reasoning of Nsir Albn and Hammd al-Ansr in declaring this hadth weak.

Hadith 6: Response to the Salafis

On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him: He 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."

The Salafis 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

The Accusation of Tadlees: 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 et el 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 alMuradi (?) 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. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------Now, something else which is extremely interesting was brought to light by Sidi Abul Hasan [of Sunniforum] which appears to have been overlooked by contemporary scholars of Hadith! Let me quote him below [with slight editing]:

"Basically, the argument that Atiyya did not clarify if he actually heard from the Sahabi Abu Sa'eed - since in all the routes that people have presented to us these days - Atiyya always used the word: "An" - meaning - FROM - which is a vague form of transmitting - Hence he was also accused of Tadlees! We can dismiss this allegation of Tadlees now at last! Because: I [Abul Hasan] have located 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:

 753 : : " :
No doubt, Shaykh al-Islam 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), but let me add that just as in the riwaya above from Ibn Bushran, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also mentioned in the above named work (Nata'ij alAfkar, 1/273) that he has also seen in the work known as Kitab al-Salah of Abu Nu'aym (Fadl ibn Dukayn) the fact that Atiyya also used the phrase: Haddathani when relating from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (ra), though this was a Mawquf narration and not Marfu hence lifting further the accusation of Tadlees against Atiyya on this specific narration under discussion.

May Allah swt reward Sidi Abul Hasan's efforts. Ameen. There should be no doubt now in any "salafi's" mind that the grading of this hadith is as the scholars of Hadith like Ibn Hajar RH mentioned - it is hasan!

Deeds Presented to the Prophet After His Death

HADITH NUMBER 7:

DEEDS PRESENTED TO THE PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATH

"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 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."

(Hayt khayrun lakum tuhaddithna wa yuhaddathu lakum wa waft khayrun lakum tu`radu a`malukum `alayya fam ra'aytu min khayrin hamidtu Allha wa m ra'aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allha lakum.)

This Hadith was dealt with in the following fascinating article [click on link]:

The Prophet in Barzakh The Special Life of Our Prophet

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki RH mentioned regarding this hadith: 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" (isnduhu jayyid).5 The hadith master al-Haythami said: "Al-Bazzar narrated it and its sub-narrators are the men of the Sahih."6 The hadith master al-Suyuti declared it sound (sahh) in al-Mu`jizat and al-Khasa'is. So did alQastallani the commentator of al-Bukhari. Al-Munawi also declared, in Fayd al-Qadir, that it is sahh.7 So did alZurqani 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'.8 So did al-Mulla `Ali al-Qari in his, adding: "Al-Harith ibn Usama narrated it in his Musnad with a sound chain."9 Ibn Hajar also mentioned it in al-Matalib al-`Alya.10 This hadith also came to us through another, mursal way from [the Tabi`] 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 , and Shaykh al-Albani said about it: "Mursal sahh."11 The hadith master Ibn `Abd al-Hadi declared it sound (sahh) 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.
[NOTES to the above are as follows: 5. Al-`Iraqi, Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297). 6. Al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa'id (9:24 #91). 7. 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, despite being retained by Muslim as a narrator and being declared trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn Ma`in and al-Nasa'i, was

declared weak by some." Al-Munawi then went on to criticize al-Suyuti's unmitigated authentication of the narration in Manahil al-Safa although al-Suyuti is correct. 8. Al-Khafaji, Sharh al-Shifa' (1:102). 9. Al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa' (1:102), referring to the mursal hadith of Bakr al-Muzani. 10Ibn Hajar, al-Matalib al-`Alya (4:22). 11In 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). ]

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, and Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf`al-Minara (p. 156-169) discusses it at length and declares it sound. Their shaykh, al-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). 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), and al-Albani in his Silsila Da`ifa (2:405). 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). 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. However, he was retained by Muslim in his Sahih and declared thiqa by Yahya ibn Ma`in, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, alNasa'i, Ibn Shahin, al-Khalili, and al-Daraqutni, while 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) as well as Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his edition of al-Dhahabi's Mughni (1:571 #3793) and 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 sahh by al-Albani - would yield a final grading of hasan or sahh, not da`f. In addition to this, Mamduh quoted al-Albani's own words in the latter's attempted refutation of Shaykh Isma`il alAnsari 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.

Deeds Presented to the Prophet After His Death

HADITH NUMBER 7:

DEEDS PRESENTED TO THE PROPHET AFTER HIS DEATH

"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 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."

(Hayt khayrun lakum tuhaddithna wa yuhaddathu lakum wa waft khayrun lakum tu`radu a`malukum `alayya fam ra'aytu min khayrin hamidtu Allha wa m ra'aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allha lakum.)

This Hadith was dealt with in the following fascinating article [click on link]:

The Prophet in Barzakh The Special Life of Our Prophet

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki RH mentioned regarding this hadith: 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" (isnduhu jayyid).5 The hadith master al-Haythami said: "Al-Bazzar narrated it and its sub-narrators are the men of the Sahih."6 The hadith master al-Suyuti declared it sound (sahh) in al-Mu`jizat and al-Khasa'is. So did alQastallani the commentator of al-Bukhari. Al-Munawi also declared, in Fayd al-Qadir, that it is sahh.7 So did alZurqani 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'.8 So did al-Mulla `Ali al-Qari in his, adding: "Al-Harith ibn Usama narrated it in his Musnad with a sound chain."9 Ibn Hajar also mentioned it in al-Matalib al-`Alya.10 This hadith also came to us through another, mursal way from [the Tabi`] 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 , and Shaykh al-Albani said about it: "Mursal sahh."11 The hadith master Ibn `Abd al-Hadi declared it sound (sahh) 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.
[NOTES to the above are as follows: 5. Al-`Iraqi, Tarh al-Tathrib (3:297). 6. Al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa'id (9:24 #91). 7. 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, despite being retained by Muslim as a narrator and being declared trustworthy (thiqa) by Ibn Ma`in and al-Nasa'i, was

declared weak by some." Al-Munawi then went on to criticize al-Suyuti's unmitigated authentication of the narration in Manahil al-Safa although al-Suyuti is correct. 8. Al-Khafaji, Sharh al-Shifa' (1:102). 9. Al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa' (1:102), referring to the mursal hadith of Bakr al-Muzani. 10Ibn Hajar, al-Matalib al-`Alya (4:22). 11In 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). ]

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, and Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf`al-Minara (p. 156-169) discusses it at length and declares it sound. Their shaykh, al-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). 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), and al-Albani in his Silsila Da`ifa (2:405). 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). 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. However, he was retained by Muslim in his Sahih and declared thiqa by Yahya ibn Ma`in, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, alNasa'i, Ibn Shahin, al-Khalili, and al-Daraqutni, while 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) as well as Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his edition of al-Dhahabi's Mughni (1:571 #3793) and 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 sahh by al-Albani - would yield a final grading of hasan or sahh, not da`f. In addition to this, Mamduh quoted al-Albani's own words in the latter's attempted refutation of Shaykh Isma`il alAnsari 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.

Adam [as] Seeks Intercession with the Prophet [saw]

Next, inshaAllah, two Hadith. The first Hadith was declared sound by many of the scholars of Hadith despite their knowledge of the presence of a problematic narrator in its chain by the name of Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam. Now, even if we accept the grading given to this Hadith by the "salafis" [something which many of the reliable scholars of the past have disagreed with them upon as demonstrated below] then still, as explained by Sh. GF Haddad the narration through Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd is not actually the most authentic chain for this report! Rather, the Hadith narrated by Maysarat al-Fajr RA [see Hadith Number 9] is the most authentic chain for this report [declared by Sh. Abdullah al-Ghumari as "good and strong"].

HADITH NUMBER 8:

ADAM [alayhi salaam] SEEKS INTERCESSION WITH THE PROPHET [salallahu alayhi wa sallam]
The Prophet said on the authority of `Umar: "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 MUHAMMADUN 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."

A discussion regarding this Hadith was found HERE

It was transmitted through many chains and was cited by Bayhaqi (in Dala'il al-nubuwwa), Abu Nu`aym (in Dala'il al-nubuwwa), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2:615), al-Tabarani in his Saghir (2:82, 207) with another chain containing sub-narrators unknown to Haythami as he stated in Majma` al-zawa'id (8:253), and Ibn `Asakir on the authority of `Umar ibn al-Khattab, and most of these narrations were copied in Qastallani's al-Mawahib al-laduniyya (and alZarqani's Commentary 2:62).

1. This hadith is declared sound (sahih) by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2:651), although he acknowledges Abd alRahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, one of its sub-narrators, as weak. However, when he mentions this hadith he says: "Its chain is sound, and it is the first hadith of Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam which I mention in this book"; al-Hakim also declares sound another version through Ibn `Abbas. 2. al-Bulqini declares this hadith sound in his Fatawa.

3. al-Subki confirms al-Hakim's authentication (in Shifa' al-siqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam p. 134-135) although Ibn Taymiyya's rejection and criticism of this hadith was known to him and he rejects it, as well as saying that Ibn Taymiyya's extreme weakening of Ibn Zayd is exaggerated. 4. The hadith is also included by Qadi `Iyad among the "sound and famous narrations" in al-Shifa, 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), about whom al-Qari said: "al-Halabi said: This seems to be the imam and guide Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn `Abd Allah al-Baghdadi, the compiler of the books al-Shari`a devoted to the Sunna, al-Arba`un, and others.'" This is confirmed by Ibn Taymiyya in his Qa`ida fi altawassul: "It is related by Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Ajurri, in his book al-Shari`a." 5. Ibn al-Jawzi 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." 6. Suyuti cites it in his Qur'anic commentary al-Durr al-manthur (2:37) and in al-Khasa'is al-kubra (1:12) and in alRiyad al-aniqa fi sharh asma' khayr al-khaliqa (p. 49), where he says that Bayhaqi considers it sound; this is due to the fact that Bayhaqi said in the introduction to the Dala'il that he only included sound narrations in his book, although he also knew and explicitly mentions `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd's weakness; 7. Ibn Kathir mentions it after Bayhaqi in al-Bidayat wa al-Nihaya (1:75, 1:180). 8. al-Haythami in Majma` al-zawa'id (8:253 #28870), al-Bayhaqi himself, and al-Qari in Sharh al- shifa' show that its chains have weakness in them. However, the weakness of Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd was known by Ibn al-Jawzi, Subki, Bayhaqi, Hakim, and Abu Nu`aym, yet all these scholars retained this hadith for consideration in their books. 9. Three scholars reject it, such as Ibn Taymiyya (Qa`ida jalila fi al-tawassul p. 89, 168-170) and his two students Ibn `Abd al-Hadi (al-Sarim al-munki p. 61-63) and al-Dhahabi (Mizan al-i`tidal 2:504 and Talkhis al-mustadrak), while `Asqalani reports Ibn Hibban's saying that `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd was a forger(Lisan al-mizan 3:360, 3:442). 10. At the same time, Ibn Taymiyya elsewhere quotes it and the version through Maysara [Faqir: see below] and says: "These two are like the elucidation (tafsir) of the authentic ahadith (concerning the same topic)" (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"; al-Maliki also quotes (without reference) Dhahabi's unrestrained endorsement of the ahadith in Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-nubuwwa with his words: "You must take what is in it (the Dala'il), for it consists entirely of guidance and light." (Mafahim yajib an tusahhah p. 47). 11. It is furthermore evident that Ibn Taymiyya considers the meaning of the creation of everything for the sake of the Prophet as true and correct, as he declares in his Majmu`at al-fatawa in the volume on tasawwuf (11:95-97): Muhammad is the Chief of the Children of Adam, the Best of Creation, the noblest of them in the sight of Allah. This is why some have said that "Allah created the Universe due to him," or that "Were it not for him, He would have neither created a Throne, nor a Footstool, nor a heaven, earth, sun or moon." However, this is not a hadith on the authority of the Prophet... but it may be explained from a correct aspect... Since the best of the righteous of the children of Adam is Muhammad, creating him was a desirable end of deep-

seated purposeful wisdom, more than for anyone else, and hence the completion of creation and the fulfilment of perfection was attained with Muhammad, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace... The Chief of the Children of Adam is Muhammad, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, Adam and his children being under his banner. He, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, said: "Truly, I was written as the Seal of the Prophets with Allah, when Adam was going to-and-fro in his clay," i.e. that my prophethood was decreed and manifested when Adam was created but before the breathing of the Spirit into him, just as Allah decrees the livelihood, lifespan, deeds and misery or happiness of the slave when He creates the embryo but before the breathing of the Spirit into 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 Pupil 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 denied to say that "Due to him all of this was created", or that "Were it not for him, all this would not have been created," so if statements like this are thus explained according to what the Book and the Sunna indicate, it is acceptable. 12. Its latter part is mentioned as a separate hadith in the wording: "Were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created the spheres (al-aflak)." al-`Ajluni said in Kashf al-khafa' (#2123): "al-Saghani (d.650) said it is forged. I say: but its meaning is correct." Similarly `Ali al-Qari said in al-Asrar al-marfu`a (#754-755): "al-Saghani (in al-Ahadith al-mawdu`a p. 7) said: "It is forged," however, its meaning is sound (mi`nahu sahih), as Daylami has narrated on the authority of Ibn `Abbas that the Prophet said: "Gabriel came to me and said: O Muhammad! Were it not for you, Paradise would not have been created, and were it not for you, the Fire would not have been created." And Ibn `Asakir's narration has: And were it not for you, the world would not have been created." As for Albani's rejection of Qari's use of Daylami in support of the hadith with the words: "I do not hesitate to declare it weak on the basis that Daylami is alone in citing it" (Silsila da`ifa #282), it shows exaggeration and deviation from the practice of the scholars concerning Daylami and his book. Ibn Taymiyya said in Minhaj al-sunna (4:38): "The fact that Daylami alone narrates a hadith does not indicate that the hadith is sound." Note that he never said: "The fact that Daylami alone narrates a hadith indicates that it is forged," yet this is what Albani concludes! The reader may compare Albani's method of apriori rejection in lieu of a discussion of the hadith itself, to Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's reliance on a hadith narrated by Daylami, as is shown by hadith #33 of his Arba`un fi rad` al-mujrim `an sabb al-muslim, although Daylami is alone in citing it. Further in Minhaj al-sunna (4:78) Ibn Taymiyya declared of him and his book: "al-Daylami in his book al-Firdaws mentioned many sound (sahih) hadiths, and also fair (hasan) narrations and forged ones.... He was one of the people of knowledge and religion and he was not a liar." 13. Ibn al-Qayyim in his Bada'i` al-fawa'id went so far as to represent Allah saying to humankind that everything was created for the sake of human beings: hal `arifat qimata nafsik? innama khalaqtu al-akwana kullaha laka... kullu al-ashiya'i shajaratun wa anta al-thamara Have you realized your value? I only created all the universes for your sake... All things are trees whose fruit you are.[18] If Allah created all the universes for the sake of human beings, then how could all humanity be given what the Prophet is grudged, who is better than mankind and jinn put together?

Adam[as] Seeks Intercession With the Prophet's [saw] Name

What follows now is the dicussion of another related Hadith narrated through Maysarat al-Fajr [RA] cited below in Arabic with its chain of narrators.

HADITH NUMBER 9:

ADAM [alayhi salaam] SEEKS INTERCESSION WITH THE PROPHET'S [salallahu alayhi wa sallam] NAME
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 Raslullhi Khtamu al-Anbiy'). 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."

: : : : )) : ( : .

Sh. GF Haddad discusses it briefly in the article The Prophetic Title "Best of Creation" :

In the chapter concerning the Prophet's superiority over all other Prophets in his great book titled al-Wafa bi Ahwal al-Mustafa', Ibn al-Jawzi states: "Part of the demonstration of his superiority to other Prophets is the fact that Adam (AS) asked his Lord through the sanctity (hurma) of Muhammad (SAWS) that He relent towards him." The most authentic chain for this report is not that of al-Hakim's narration from `Umar through `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam who is weak (da`f), but that of the Companion Maysarat al-Fajr who narrates it as [above]

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 Companioncorroboration (shhid) I saw for the hadith of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd" as quoted also by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 248).

Elsewhere Maulana Muhammad ibn Moulana Haroon Abasoomar states: "The chain of narrators for this Hadith is totally different from the previous one. And in fact, Hafiz ibn Hajar [ra] has stated concerning a completely different narration which has the very same chain of narrators, 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)"

Sidi Abul Hasan also mentioned the following on Sunniforum:

The student of Imam al-Suyuti: Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi of Damascus, who died in the year 942 AH, has mentioned in his multi-volume Sira work known as: Subul al-Hadi wal Rashhad, this very narration from Maysara (ra) as follows (vol. 1/p. 86, Darul Kutub Ilmiyya edn, Beirut) from Imam ibn al Jawzi:

: : : . .
The crucial point is highlighted in blue above, where Imam al-Salihi declared the chain of transmission to be: "Jayyid La Ba'sa bihi", Meaning: "Good and there is no harm in it." This earlier ruling gives credibility to Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghumari and his student: Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh's declarations on its authenticity. Note also, that Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghumari has also declared in his Al-Ahadith alMuntaqa fi-Fada'il Rasul Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) that the narration from Maysara (ra) is "Qawi" - "Strong" Sidi Abul Hasan went on to add a new point of benefit with regard to the narration from Maysara al-Fajr (ra):

: )1( : : : )) : ( : . )951/2(
Some contemporaries have objected of late that in the sanad to the narration from Ibn Bushran there is a narrator by the name of Muhammad ibn Salih - and it is not precisely known which of the numerous Muhammad ibn Salih's is this exact one in the Isnad given above. Shaykh Mamduh has named two that could possibly be the exact narrator in the above sanad. He said:

. )063/5(
Basically it may be the Muhammad ibn Salih known as Abu Bakr al-Anmati who he said was a trustworthy Hafiz (Thiqa Hafiz, as In Taqreeb al-Tahdhib of Ibn Hajar, no. 5962) or it may be Muhammad ibn Salih al-Wasiti Ka'b alZaari who was declared Thiqa by Khatib al-Baghdadi in his Ta'rikh (5/360).

The objection stems from not having direct evidence if any of these narrators commonly known as Muhammad ibn Salih did actually meet and narrate from the next narrator in the Isnad known as: Muhammad ibn Sinan. The answer Insha'allah:Most of our contemporaries, like the late Shaykh Abdullah al-Ghumari and his students like Shaykh Mamduh seem to have missed or not known of another alternative route which was also related by Imam Ibn Bushran, with the crucial point of Muhammad ibn Salih not being in an alternative route containing the same text! The Imam: Shamsud-Din Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Nu'man al-Marakashi, who died in the year 683 AH, hence before Ibn Taymiyya has related in his book known as:

The following Isnad on p. 23, without the narrator Muhammad ibn Salih in the sanad:

The chain from Ibn Bushran is thus from his Shaykh Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Amr from Ahmad ibn Ishaq ibn Salih from Muhammad ibn Sinan al-Awqi from Ibrahim ibn Tahman from Budayl ibn Maysara from Abdullah ibn Shaqiq from Maysara al-Fajr with the same text as Ibn Taymiyya mentioned from Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi.A similar chain to this was recorded by Imam al-Bayhaqi in his Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (no. 18) as follows with a different text:

: : : : : : " : "
Insha'allah, this should give strength to the route containing Muhammad ibn Salih in the initial part of the discussion above. If anyone has an objection to the sanad given by Imam al-Marakashi then they need to show why using Ilm al-Jarh wa Ta'dil of the narrators.

The Correct Understanding of the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-'Abbas

HADITH NUMBER 10:

TAWASSUL OF 'UMAR THROUGH AL-'ABBAS [may

Allah be pleased with them] )459( : :
It is narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree (954) from Anas ibn Maalik that if a drought came, 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radiyallahu 'anhu) would ask al-'Abbaas ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib to pray for rain. He would say: "O Allah, we used to beseech You by means of (the du'a of) Your Prophet for rain and You would give us rain; now we beseech You by means of (the du'a of) the paternal uncle of Your Prophet, so grant us rain." [Salafi translation] This hadith is often manipulated by the salafis to try and prove that Tawassul is only through the living and not through the deceased. Alhamdolillah, Sunnipath has a useful response to them on this issue on their website [www.sunnipath.com]:

Question:
How do the contemporary Hanafi scholars explain the hadeeth recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari according to which Khalifah Umar (Allah be pleased with him) asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) to ask Allah for rain on behalf of the Muslim community and not the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) at his grave. The Khalifah said that they USED to ask the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to ask Allah and now they ask his uncle instead.

Reply:
Before turning to the question and its questionable premises some preliminary remarks are in order. First of all, `Umar asked al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib, not his son `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas... Second, the terminology of the Khalifa's request, Allah be well-pleased with him, is as follows: "O Allah! We would use our Prophet as a means to You and You then sent us rain; now we use our Prophet's uncle as a means to You, therefore send us rain!" Narrated from Anas by al-Bukhari in his Sahih. Whoever understands from this that `Umar only used al-`Abbas as his means and not the Messenger of Allah, upon him peace, because al-`Abbas is alive and the Messenger of Allah is dead that persons understanding is dead. (Al-Maliki)

Al-Suyuti mentions the context of this event in his Tarikh al-Khulafa' (Beirut, 1992 Ahmad Fares ed. p. 140): "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. Ibn `Awn narrated that `Umar took al`Abbas's hand and raised it up, saying, 'O Allah, we seek a means to You with the uncle of Your Prophet to ask that You drive away from us the drought and water us with rain'...."

Now, the event of the tawassul of Sayyiduna `Umar through al-`Abbas shows the following:

[1] Nowhere in the hadith is there any indication that there was no tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, in the time of `Umar. Such a view is an inference or an extrapolation that is not based on explicit evidence.

[2] On the contrary, `Umar implicitly made tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, at that very time, by wearing his blessed cloaks as he came out for the prayer for rain as mentioned in the report by Ibn Sa`d. In Sahih Muslim Asma' says that she inherited the mantle of the Prophet from her sister `A'isha and that they used it to seek a cure for people.

[3] The use of the Prophet's uncle illustrates that tawassul is essentially through the Prophet upon him peace, as the importance of al-`Abbas in this respect is only in his relationship to the Prophet as `Umar himself states with the words "the uncle of Your Prophet" in al-Bukhari's version already mentioned; "the status of al-`Abbas in relation to your Prophet" in al-Lalika'i's version; and as al-`Abbas states: "O Allah, truly no tribulation descends except because of sins, nor is lifted except upon repentence. The people have turned to you by means of me BECAUSE OF MY POSITION IN RELATION TO YOUR PROPHET, and here are our hands [raised up] towards you - despite our sins - and our forelocks in repentence, so send down water for us and PRESERVE YOUR PROPHET IN THE PERSON OF HIS UNCLE." Whereupon the sky let down water as thick as ropes and the people came over to al-`Abbas passing their hands over him and saying to him: Congratulations to you, irrigator of the two Sanctuaries! Whereupon `Umar said, He/This is, by Allah, the means to Allah and the place of nearness to Him! Cited from al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar's narration in al-Ansab by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (2:497). So the tawassul continues to be solely through the Prophet despite appearances to the contrary, for he is the ultimate recourse of human beings seeking nearness to Allah as he himself taught the blind man (Say, O Muhammad, I turn with you to Allah) and as several Sahaba explicitly said, such as in the following reports: (a) Report of the Bedouin who said to the Holy Prophet : We have come to you when even our virgins' milk is dry, and the mother worries for her own life over her child's, The child lets down his arms sitting still For hunger, a hunger unstilled and uninterrupted. We have nothing left from what our people eat Except bitter colocynth and camel-wool mixed with blood. And we have none but you to flee to, for where can people flee except to the Messengers? Then the Prophet - upon him peace - stood up and he was dragging his garment. He climbed up the pulpit and said: "O Allah, send us water...." whereupon rain fell abundantly. Then the Prophet upon him peace said: "If Abu Talib were alive he would have liked to see this. Who will recite for us what he said?" Hearing this, `Ali stood up and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I think you mean his saying: A fair-skinned one by whose face rainclouds are sought, A caretaker for the orphans and protector of widows. With him the clan of Hashim seek refuge from calamities, For they possess in him immense favor and grace...." Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (6:141) cf. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (6:90-91) and Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 2:629).

(b) Report of Sawad ibn Qarib al-Sadusi who declaimed: Truly, you are the nearest of all Messengers as a means to Allah, son of the noblest and purest ones! Therefore, be an intercessor for me the Day none but you among intercessors shall be of the least benefit for Sawad ibn Qarib! Whereupon the Prophet smiled, upon him peace, and said: You have obtained success, Sawad! Narrated by Abu Ya`la in his Mu`jam (p. 265), al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (7:94 6475), Abu Nu`aym in Dalail alNubuwwa (p. 114 63), al-Taymi in the Dalail (p. 132), al-Hakim in the Mustadrak, (3:705), al-Bayhaqi in the Dala'il (2:251) cf. Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Isti`ab (2:675), Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (4:169) and Bidaya, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (7:180) and Isaba (3:219).

(c) Report of Hassan ibn Thabit who declaimed: O Pillar of those who rely upon you, O Immunity of those who seek refuge in you, and Resort of those who seek herbiage and rain, and Neighboring Protector of those in need of shelter! O you whom the One God has chosen for His creatures by planting in him perfection and purity of character! Narrated by Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (1:276) and Ibn Sayyid al-Nas in Minah al-Mad-h (p. 73).

[4] The background to `Umar's prayer for rain shows that there was also an explicit tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, performed by the Sahabi Bilal ibn al-Harith as narrated in two versions: (a) Version 1 From the Sahabi Malik al-Dar: The people suffered a drought in `Umar's khilafa, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa- Alihi wa-Sallam and said: "Messenger of Allah! Ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished." After this 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: Be clever!" The man went and told `Umar. The latter wept and said: "My Lord! I spare no effort except in what escapes my power." Ibn Kathir cites it thus from al-Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7:47) in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (Ma`arif ed. 7:9192=Dar Ihya' al-Turath ed. 7:105) saying: "isnaduhu sahih" and he also declares its chain sound (isnaduhu jayyidun qawi) in his Jami` al-Masanid (1:223) in Musnad `Umar. Ibn Abi Shayba cites it (6:352=12:31-32) with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: "rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi'isnadin sahih" and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari, Book of Istisqa ch. 3 (1989 ed. 2:629-630=1959 ed. 2:495) as well as in al-Isaba (6:164 8350=3:484) where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it. It is also thus narrated by al-Khalili in al-Irshad (1:313- 314) and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:464=3:1149). Al-Albani attempted to weaken this report in his Tawassul (p. 120) but was refuted in the lengthy analysis given by Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 262-278), which refutes other similar attempts cf. Ibn Baz's marginalia on Fath alBari, Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri's tract Wa-Ja'u Yarkudun, Hammad al-Ansari's articles "al-Mafhum al-Sahih lil-Tawassul" also titled "Tuhfat al-Qari fil-Radd `ala al-Ghumari," and other such literature. Ibn Hajar identifies the man who visited and saw the Prophet upon him peace, in his dream as the Companion Bilal ibn al- Harith, counting this hadith among the reasons for al- Bukhari's naming of the chapter "The people's request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought" in his Sahih, book of Istisqa'.

(b) Version 2 from al-Tabari's Tarikh (2:509):

In the year of the drought called al-Ramada during the successorship of `Umar the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, while slaughtering a sheep for his kin, noticed that the sheep's bones had turned red because the drying flesh was clinging to them. He cried out "Ya Muhammadah!" Then he saw the Prophet - upon him peace - in a dream ordering him to go to `Umar with the tidings of coming rain on condition that `Umar show wisdom. Hearing this, `Umar assembled the people and came out to pray for rain with al-`Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet upon him blessings and peace.

[5] `Umar had made tawassul through the Prophet in the past, upon him peace, since he said: "WE WOULD USE OUR PROPHET AS A MEANS TO YOU..." i.e. in his and Abu Bakr's rule (and not only during the life of the Prophet upon him peace), as it is improbable that they never once experienced drought in the previous 8.5 years. But to restrict this sententence to the Prophet's lifetime is a deficiency stemming from idle lust, a manipulation of the text of the report, and figurative interpretation without proof. (Al-Kawthari)

[6] At any rate the major Sahaba did make tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, after his time as established by the report from our Mother `A'isha - Allah be well- pleased with her - in al-Darimi's Sunan, in the 15th Chapter of the Introduction (1:43) titled: "Allah's generosity to His Prophet after his death," related 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." The reader will find extensive documentation on this report in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine (4:47-52) and it was declared authentic by all the Sunni experts of hadith, last in date Shaykh Nabil ibn Hashim al-Ghamri in his 1999 10-volume edition of and commentary on al-Darimi titled Fath al-Mannan (1:564-566) where he rejects the objections of al-Albani and his likes to this hadith.

[7] `Umar had made tawassul through the Prophet upon him peace, in the campaign of Tabuk and had therefore directly experienced the Divine munificence and Prophetic generosity. "When the travel provision of the people decreased they thought of slaughtering their camels but `Umar came to the Prophet upon him peace, and said, 'How will they survive without their camels?' The Prophet said, 'Call to them to bring every remainder of their travel provisions.' A piece of leather was spread and they brought whatever they had. Then the Messenger of Allah stood and supplicated, then he blessed over the food and summoned them to being their bags. The people supplied themselves to the last one. Then the Messenger of Allah said, 'I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah!'" Narrated from Salama ibn al-Akwa` by al-Bukhari and Muslim and from Abu Hurayra by Muslim and Ahmad.

[8] `Umar used al-`Abbas to show people the status of the Prophet's family in the society and teach them to respect and venerate them, as Ibn Hajar said in explanation of the report of Anas cited above: "It is desirable to seek the intercession of saintly people and the relatives of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi waAlihi wa-Sallam, and it shows al-`Abbas's great merit and that of `Umar due to the latter's humbleness before al`Abbas and his recognition of his due right." This is confirmed by al-Ajurri's narration in al-Shari`a and Ahmad in Fada'il al-Sahaba (2:937 #1802) that Ka`b alAhbar took al-`Abbas's hand and said, "I shall hide it away [this handshake] for your intercession on my behalf." Al`Abbas replied: "Why, will I have the power of intercession?" Ka`b said: "Yes, there is none from the Household of the Prophet upon him and them peace, except they have the power of intercession!" Ka`b al-Ahbar also said to Sayyidina `Umar: "Whenever the Israelites had a drought they sought intercession through their Prophet's household" as narrated by Ibn `Abd al- Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:814).

[9] It is known that `Umar had a particular veneration for the Prophetic Household (Ahl al-Bayt) as illustrated by the following reports: (a) Ibn Sa`d narrated from al-Sha`bi and al-Hasan that al- `Abbas had some need of `Umar one day and said to him: "Commander of the Believers, suppose the uncle of Musa, upon him peace, came to you as a Muslim, how would you treat him?" He replied, "I swear by Allah that I would treat him well!" Al-`Abbas said, "Well, I am the uncle of Muhammad the Prophet - upon him and his House blessings and peace!" `Umas said, "Abu al-Fadl, and what do you suppose? By Allah, your father [`Abd al-Muttalib] is certainly dearer to me than my own father!" He said, "By Allah?" `Umar said, "By Allah, yes! Because I know that he [`Abd al-Muttalib] is dearer to the Messenger of Allah than my own father, therefore I prefer the love of the Messenger of Allah to my love." (b) A man disparaged `Ali ibn Abi Talib in the presence of `Umar whereupon the latter said: "Do you know the dweller of this grave? He is Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. And `Ali is the son of Abu Talib ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Therefore, do not mention `Ali except in a good way for if you dislike him you will harm this one in his grave." Narrated by Ahmad with a good chain in Fada'il al-Sahaba (2:641 #1089). (c) After `Umar saw al-Husayn ibn `Ali ibn Abi Talib waiting at his door he said to him: "You are more deserving of permission to enter than [my son] `Abd Allah ibn `Umar! You see the goodness that was placed on our head; [therefore] first Allah; then you [the Prophetic Household]!" and he placed his hand on his head as he spoke. Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Rahuyah, and al-Khatib. (d) Jabir said he heard `Umar ibn al-Khattab say on the pulpit after he married Umm Kulthum, the daughter of `Ali and Fatima - Allah be well-pleased with them: "Do not disparage me [for marrying a young girl], for I heard the Prophet say, upon him blessings and peace: 'On the Judgment Day every means will be cut off and every lineage severed except my lineage.'" Narrated by al-Tabarani. Al-Haythami said its narrators are those of al-Bukhari and Muslim. `Umar desired to place himself in the Prophet's lineage through this marriage due to the precedence of Ahl al-Bayt in the Prophet's intercession, upon him and them peace.

[10] Nor is this intercession solely by way of the Prophet's mere supplication (du`a) and by means of al-`Abbas's mere supplication as claimed by the innovators and by the terminology of the question cited above. Rather, it was by means of their person (dhat) AND du`a as literally stated in the following reports among many others: (a) Intercession through the Prophet's person according to Ibn `Umar: In Sahih al-Bukhari: `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 - upon him blessings and peace - while he was praying for rain - and he did not come down until 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." This is tahrif i.e. textual and semantic manipulation of the most important source in Islam after the Qur'an.

(b) Intercession through al-`Abbas's person according to `Umar: "People! The Messenger of Allah sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Alihi wa-Sallam considered al-`Abbas like his father, venerating him and greatly respecting him and his rights. Therefore, O people! take the lead of the Messenger of Allah in the person of his uncle al-`Abbas and take the latter as your means to Allah Most High in the context of your tribulation." Narrated from `Umar with a sound chain by al-Baladhiri and with weak chains from Ibn `Umar by al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar in al-Ansab and Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (8:932) as cited by Ibn Hajar in the Fath (1959 ed. 2:497). Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al- Minara (p. 120) rejected al-Albani's claim in his book al-Tawassul (p. 67-68) that the chain of this hadith is "mixed up" (mudtarib) as inapplicable here.

[11] `Umar showed the possibility of tawassul through X. even though Y. - also present - may be better than X. He showed that tawassul through the inferior in the presence of the superior is permissible as there is Consensus that the best of all living human beings after Prophets then, namely `Umar, `Uthman, and `Ali are all three superior to al`Abbas, Allah be well-pleased with all of them. This was also a mark of humbleness on `Umar's part as already cited from Fath al-Bari. Another example of this is the tawassul of Mu`awiya for rain through the Sahabi Yazid ibn alAswad al-`Amiri as narrated by Abu Zur`a al-Dimashqi in his Tarikh and his tawassul also through the Tabi`i Abu Muslim al-Khawlani as narrated by Ahmad in al-Zuhd cf. al-Tahanawi, I`la' al-Sunan (8:193).

[12] `Umar used al-`Abbas also as a precaution lest people's faith in the Prophet upon him peace, be shaken in case the prayer were not answered.

[13] Finally, the Sunna prayer for rain formally has to be performed by the outward, political Imam of the Muslims or his deputy. It is in that function that the office of the Messenger of Allah upon him blessings and peace had ceased and was taken over, first by Abu Bakr, then by `Umar. Al-`Abbass position in this event is that of the deputy of the latter as the Commander of the Believers. And Allah knows best. -I have compiled the above from the references cited below and the lights imparted by my teachers on this subject may Allah keep them and thank them for guarding pure and authentic Sunni doctrine from the ignorant and the extremists. Contemporary Hanafi References: - Al-Kawthari, M uhammad Zahid. "M ahq al-Taqawwul fi M as'alat al-Tawassul" ("The Eradication of Gossip Concerning the Use of Intermediaries") in his M aqalat ("Essays") and recently published as a monograph with introduction and notes by Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji (1997). - Al-Dajwi, Yusuf Ahmad al-Kawtharis Shaykh. Four Articles on tawassul originally published in M ajallat al-Azhar and reprinted at the beginning of Ghawjis edition of al-Kawtharis M ahq al-Taqawwul. - Ghawji, Wahbi Sulayman. Introduction to M ahq al-Taqawwul. - Al-Nass, Samer. Al-Wasilatu ila Fahmi Haqiqat al-Tawassul ("The M eans to Understanding the Truth of Seeking a M eans"). Beirut: Dar al-Tawfiq, 2003. The best treatment in our opinion. Other references: - M uhammad ibn `Alawi al-M aliki, M afahim Yajib an Tusahhah ("Necessary Correction of Certain M isconceptions"). 10th ed. (p. 153156.) - Abul-Hasanayn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-M akki al- Hashimi, al-Salafiyya al-M u`asira: M unaqashat wa-Rudud (Contemporary Salafism: Discussions and Rebuttals) p. 143-145.

- Al-Ghumari, Irgham al-M ubtadi` al-Ghabi bi-Jawaz al- Tawassul bil-Nabi ("Compelling the Dunderheaded Innovator to Accept the Permissibility of Using the Prophet as a M eans"). Ed. Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf. 2nd ed. Amman: Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1992. - M ahmud M amduh, Raf` al-M inara bi-Ahadith al-Tawassul wal- Ziyara ("Raising the Lighthouse with the Hadiths of Seeking M eans and Visitation [of the Prophet]") p. 118-121.

O Slaves of Allah! Help Me

Hadith 11: O Slaves of Allah!

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 Allahs attendants on this earth. They will help you recover it.
At-Tabarani said in Mujamul Kabir (10/267): Ibrahim Ibn Naila Al-Asbahani narrated to us from Al-Hasan Ibn Umar Ibn Shaqiq from Maruf Ibn Hasan AsSamarqandi from Said Ibn Abi Arubah from Qatadah from Abdullah Ibn Buraydah from Abdullah Ibn Masud that he said: The Messenger of Allah said: 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 Allahs attendants on this earth. They will help you recover it. [1] Abu Yala has narrated it like this in his Musnad (9/177) [2] as well as Ibn As-Sunni in Amalul Yawmi wal Laylah (page 162). Al-Haythami said in Al-Majmauz Zawaid (10/132) after quoting Abu Yala and At-Tabrani The chain contains Maruf Ibn Hasan who is daif [3]. The same was said by Al-Hafiz Al-Busiri in Mukhtasar Ithafus Sadatul Muhrah (notes to Matalib al-Aliyya, 3/239) [4]. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Takhrij Al-Adhkar (Sharh Ibn Allan, 5/150) after ascribing it to Ibn As-Sunni and AtTabrani: There is inqita (discontinuation) in the chain between Ibn Buraydah and Ibn Masud.

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: What At-Tabrani transmitted in his Mujamul 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 that he said: 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. [5]

I say: The chain contains daf (weakness) and inqita. Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami said in Al-Majmauz Zawaid (10/132): At-Tabrani narrated it and its narrators have been declared reliable although there is weakness in some of them; except that, Zayd Ibn Ali did not meet Utbah . [6]

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 Prophet ) 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 said: 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 [7] This hadith is mursal (the Tabii drops the Sahabi and narrates directly from the Prophet .) If it werent 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 mudal (where two consecutive narrators are dropped and not just one as would be the case with a mursal hadith) in his Daeefah (2/109) [8] but this is incorrect because Aban Ibn Salih was from the younger Tabiin. 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 Ismail related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: 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-Majmauz Zawaid (10/132): Al-Bazzar related it and its narrators are reliable [9] 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 Shubul Iman [10] on the authority of Ibn Abbas also, but in a mawquf (untraceable) form through Jafar Ibn Awn from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aba Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas. Al-Albani claimed in his Da'eefa (2/112) the marfu route had a defect because of the mawquf route since Jafar Ibn Awn (who narrated the mawquf route) is more reliable than Hatim Ibn Ismail (who narrated the marfu route) so the hadith becomes defective due to the discrepancy while the preferred view is that it is mawquf . [11]

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 AnNawawi 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 [translator: I think what is meant here is Ibn Abdal Hadi] has clarified this in Al-Tanqih (1/350) as printed in Egypt. 2. Hatim Ibn Ismail 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 Masud 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, and Allah knows best.

Benefit

When a hadith is mentioned with a daif 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. 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 Shubul Iman of Al-Bayhaqi, Abdullah Ibn Imam Ahmad said 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. [12] o After Abul Qasim At-Tabarani transmitted it in his Mu'jam al Kabir (17/117) he said this has been acted upon [13] o 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 dua) 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 dua) and I ]41[.found the animal immediately without any means but this statement

: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 2. It is strengthened due to the practice of the Ummah .)One of these paths (the latter) is stronger than the other (the first .And Allah knows best

:Notes

:76301 [1] This can be found in the online meshkat Mujamul Kabir, number : : : :9625 [2] In the online meshkat Musnad, volume 9, number )50171( [3] Majma'uz Zawaid :9645 [4] In the online meshkat Ithaf, number : : - -: " : - - ". :73731 [5] In the online meshkat Mujamul Kabir, number :" :" " )30171( [6] Majma'uz Zawaid [7] Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah :951 [8] In the online meshkat Silsilatul Ahadith Ad-Daeefah, volume 2, page , " " ) 21 / 351 / 2 ( : . , , )40171( [9] Majma'uz Zawaid :761 [10] In the online meshkat Shubul Iman, volume 1, page 50, number :261-161 [11] In the online meshkat Silsilatul Ahadith Ad-Daeefah, volume 2, page , , , , : . : . : " , " . : " " . , , , .

:7967 [12] In the online meshkat Shubul Iman, volume 6, page 52, number :5 [13] See note [14] Al-Adhkar

Yaa Muhammad!

Narration 12:

Yaa Muhammad!
Abu Nuaym related to us who said that Sufyan related to us from Abu Ishaq from Abdar Rahman ibn Sad, 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

Praise be to Allah that is due from all grateful believers, a fullness of praise for all his favours: a praise that is abundantly sincere and blessed. May the blessings of Allah be upon our beloved Master Muhammad, the chosen one, the Apostle of mercy and the seal of all Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all); and upon his descendants who are upright and pure: a blessing lasting to the Day of Judgment, like the blessing bestowed upon the Prophet Ibrahim (alaihis salam) and his descendants. May Allah be pleased with all of the Prophetic Companions (Ashab al-Kiram). Indeed, Allah is most worthy of praise and supreme glorification! In request to a brother, the following narration from al-Adab al-Mufrad of Imam al-Bukhari will be analysed to see how authentic it is and who from the earlier Ulama disseminated it in certain books of invocations specifically. The narration was weakened by the late Nasir al-Albani in his editing of the Adab al-Mufrad.The text under scrutiny:

[ 964 ]
Imam al-Bukhari related in his Adab al-Mufrad (no. 964): Abu Nuaym related to us who said that Sufyan related to us from Abu Ishaq from Abdar Rahman ibn Sad, 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 Some copies of Adab al-Mufrad do not have the Ya before the name Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). The Ya is found in other versions of this narration in other collections which mentioned this similar narration with chains of transmission linked to it. In the printed edition of the Adab al-Mufrad by Samir al-Zuhayri (who utilised alAlbanis gradings from his edition) it does have the Ya included. Scan: http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/YAA.jpg

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 ,9352 .This narration with Ya Muhammad in its wording is also recorded by i) Ali ibn al Jad in his Musnad (no :see also Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi and Tabaqat ibn Sad below) as follows

: : : " : :
:)171 .ii) Ibn al-Sunni in his Amal wal yaum wal Layla (no

: " : : . : . : " .
.Other variants will be mentioned in due course below

ISNAD ANALYSIS
:Looking at al-Bukharis sanad in his Adab al-Mufrad (above) again, the following narrators are found in its sanad Abu Nuaym He is Fadl ibn Dukayn and he is no doubt Thiqa Thabt (Trustworthy and firmly established) as ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb (no. 5401). In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 8) it mentions that he heard from both Sufyans :)Ibn Uyayna and al-Thawri. Additionally he heard from Zuhayr ibn Muawiya also (highlighted

] 505 [


The question now is Which of the two Sufyans did Abu Nuaym take from and which of them took from Abu Ishaq? Both Sufyans are Thiqa Hafiz - as Ibn Hajar declared in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib, but someone may object that

if it is Sufyan al-Thawri then he did tadlees at times. The same may be said about Sufyan ibn Uyayna who is said to have done tadlees at times from trustworthy narrators. Suppose that is the case then what is the solution to uplift this objection? The answer is that even if it was one or the other of the two Sufyans and they may have done tadlees, the narration is still supported by Zuhayr ibn Muawiya as in Tabaqat ibn Sad (no. 4776) as follows:

: : : , : : - - : : , :
Also, in Ibn al-Sunnis Amal wal Yaum wal Layla (no. 171) quoted above, it was mentioned without the link of any of the two Sufyans but via Zuhayr alone. All this shows that Abu Nuaym took from one of the two Sufyans and also Zuhayr ibn Muawiya, and Ali ibn alJad took from Zuhayr as in Ibn al-Sunnis work. Another objection may be raised about Zuhayrs narration from Abu Ishaq al-Sabii. Ibn Hajar mentioned the following in his Taqreeb al-Tahdhib about Zuhayr: [ 2051 ]

Here he indicated that Zuhayr is Thiqa Thabt (trustworthy and firmly established) except that he heard from Abu Ishaq towards the end. Zuhayrs narrations are also in the Sihah Sitta. Someone may object that Zuhayr may have transmitted the confused wordings of Abu Ishaq as he narrated from him in his last days (when his memory deteriorated). The answer would be: There is no proof that Zuhayr transmitted from Abu Ishaq any confused wordings here as he is also supported by one of the two Sufyans with identical wording. Also, this route of Zuhayr from Abu Ishaq is in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim. Examples: In Sahih al-Bukhari:

<< 06 - << 69 - : . 2772 - : : : : : : ) (. . << 56 - << 22 - : 3419 - : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ) (. : : : : ) (. - - - - : . : :

:In Sahih Muslim

. << 6 - << )2( : . . . )696( - 12 . (: (

Additionally, one of the two Sufyans is supported not just by Zuhayr but by Israil ibn Yunus as found in another .)variant from Ibn al-Sunni (see no. 169 below :Note that Israil is the grandson of Abu Ishaq al-Sabii and ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb al-Tahdhib about him

] 104 [ He is thus Thiqa though some spoke about him without any Hujja and his narrations are in the Sihah Sitta also. One can find Israils narrations from Abu Ishaq in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim.Examples from Sahih :al-Bukhari .Note, in these examples the narrator Abu Ishaq al-Sabii also reported from his Shaykh via use of an-ana . << 3 - . << 84 - : : : - 621 : : : ) - . - : (.

: : : - )1473( .

: : - )2533( .

:Example in Sahih Muslim

. . << 35 - << 91 - . : - )9002( . . . . -57 : . . . . : . . . : ! . . . . . . . " " . . " " . . : ! ! !

)8 .About Abu Ishaq al-Sabii (Amr ibn Abdullah) This is what is in Tahdhib al Tahdhib of ibn Hajar (vol

] 001 [ 8 92 69

 92 23
:Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb al-Tahdhib about Abu Ishaq

] 5605 [
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 :The notice above from the Tahdhib al-Tahdhib mentions that amongst those who took from Abu Ishaq include Sufyan al-Thawri Sufyan ibn Uyayna Israil ibn Yunus Zuhayr ibn Muawiya

Someone may object that Abu Ishaq al-Sabii 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. Thus, there does not appear to be any specific proof that any hadith )scholar accused Abu Ishaq of committing tadlees when reporting from the next narrator (Abdar Rahman ibn Sad .as in al-Bukharis 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. Examples of an-ana committed by Abu Ishaq and acceptable to al.Bukhari or Muslim will now be demonstrated below

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

It may also be seen below how Imam al-Bukhari also accepted some narrations where one of the two Sufyans transmitted from Abu Ishaq by an-ana and then Abu Ishaq did an-ana when reporting from his Shaykh

. << 2 - . << 92 - :

: : : - 04 : . : : .}: }

) << 95 - . << 1 - : : )

: : : - 8852

: .

. << 06 - << 23 - :

: : : - 8762 :

.) : )

. << 06 - << 58 - :

: : - 5572 .

. << 06 - << 79 - :

: : - 6772

: : ) (. . : .. : . : . : .

. << 66 - << 65 - :

: : : - 6263

: .

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

 << 21 - . << )02(

. : )6101( -66 :

." " .] )( [

. << 23 - << 94 -

. . )4521( - 441 . .

. . << 44 - << 1 -

: . . )3832( - 5 : . . .

." "

. << 44 - << 22 -

. : )0642( - 111 : . .

 . << 84 - << 81 -

- )1272( . : . -27 ." "

The last narrator in the sanad of al-Bukharis Adab al-Mufrad is Abdar Rahman ibn Sad who was a free slave of .Ibn Umar (ra) based in Kufa

In the Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi (vol. 17) under his biography the very narration under analysis is mentioned via the route of Ali ibn al-Jad from Zuhayr from Abu Ishaq, as well as mentioning that it is also from the route of Abu Nuaym from Sufyan from Abu Ishaq as is found in Adab al-Mufrad of al-Bukhari in an abridged form. Al-Mizzi :mentioned

] 2383 [

)6 .Ibn Hajar mentioned the following about Abdar Rahman ibn Sad in his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol

] 673 [

Abdar Rahman ibn Sad is Thiqa as Ibn Hajar deduced from Ibn Hibban and Nasais tawthiq in his Taqrib al:Tahdhib

] 7783 [

,In conclusion the narration in al-Bukharis Adab al-Mufrad (similar sanad in Tabaqat ibn Sad) 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

761 .No

: : : . : "

961 .No

: : " . : . :

171 .No

: " : : . : . : " .

:The Tabaqat of ibn Sad (no. 4776) also mentions it as pointed out earlier

: : : , : : - - : : , :

The first 2 routes (nos 167 and 169) are weaker in the sanad than that of al-Bukharis Adab al-Mufrad but all these variants add strength to each other in affirming the reality of the incident and that the wording Ya Muhammad .was used, though one variant stated Ya Muhammadah

In the 4 chains presented to date, all of them contain Abu Ishaq al-Sabii, and he has narrated to 4 different students: i) Sufyan (as in Adab al-Mufrad and Ibn Sads Tabaqat) ii) Zuhayr ibn Muawiya (as in Tabaqat of Ibn Sad) iii) Israil ibn Yunus (as in Ibn al Sunni) iv)Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash (as in ibn al-Sunni) It is known that Ibn Taymiyya did 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. Both Ibn Taymiyya and al-Mizzi did not attack the story or its implications, let alone object to the Isnads authenticity. Ibn Taymiyya mentioned the version from Ibn al-Sunni (no. 169) above which was weakened by al-Albani on top of his weakening of the version from al-Bukhari (no. 967, English edition). This is what Ibn Taymiyya mentioned in his Kalim al-Tayyib:

236 : . : :

In addition to this, Ibn Taymiyyas disciple, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya has also mentioned some of the variants (similar to what Ibn al-Sunni recorded in wording) in his own work on Invocations known as al-Wabil al-Sayyib min Kalim al-Tayyib (p. 135), as follows:

Scan from printed copy of al-Wabil al-Sayyib:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f378/faqir/yamuhammad2.jpg

The one noticeable point is that in Ibn al Qayyims quote the Ya before Muhammad has not been included though it is found in Ibn al-Sunnis Amal wal yaum wal Layla, and this is how Ibn Taymiyya correctly mentioned it. Those who shout shirk with undue hastiness in these days of fitna and fasad can see that the very authorities they claim as their Imams in understanding Tawheed: Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim have mentioned these types of narrations with regard to narrations on virtuous supplications. Additionally, the Hafiz of his age and associate to Ibn Taymiyya, known as al-Hafiz al-Mizzi, did not identify any fault in the sanad that he mentioned in his Tahdhib alKamal, nor did he reject the text of the report.

Overall I can see no reason why the route in the Adab al-Mufrad of al-Bukhari and very similar to it is the chain from Ibn Sad should not be less than Hasan. Even if all the chains are daeef they may be brought together to raise the narration to at least Hasan Inshaallah.