"Confused" ?
Part 2
Quote:
Whilst
I was reading Saheeh al-Jaami‘ as-Sagheer, I came across a hadeeth (1279) that
says:
“O Allah, I ask You
and I turn to You by virtue of Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O
Muhammad, I turn by virtue of you to my Lord concerning this need of mine, that
it might be met for me. O Allah, or accept his intercession for me.”
* I was confused about this hadeeth.
* Is there any evidence in it for those who seek to draw
close to Allah (tawassul) by virtue of the dead, as is done by worshippers of
graves and their ilk?
* How can we interpret this hadeeth?.
Praise
be to Allaah.
Imam Ahmad and others
narrated with a saheeh isnaad from ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef that a blind man
came to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and said:
Pray to Allah to heal me. The Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If you wish, I shall pray for
you; and if you wish, I shall delay that for you and that will be better for
you.” [According to another report, he said: “… Or if you wish, you can be patient
and that will be better for you.”] He said: Pray for me (now).
So he instructed him
to do wudoo’ and do it well, then to pray two rak‘ahs and say this du‘aa’
(supplication):
* “O Allah, I ask
You and I turn to You by virtue of Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy.
O Muhammad, I turn by virtue of you to my Lord concerning this need of mine,
that it might be met for me. O Allah, accept his intercession concerning me and
accept my intercession concerning him.”
* So the man did that and he was healed.
Some people are
confused by this hadeeth and think that it constitutes evidence for some
innovated types of tawassul (seeking to draw close to Allah), but that is not the case.
This
misinterpretation of this hadeeth has been answered by many of the scholars, who explained
that it does not constitute evidence for
any of those who believe in innovated kinds of tawassul, whether that is by
virtue of the Prophet’s person or by virtue of his status, let alone tawassul
by virtue of the dead and calling upon them instead of Allah.
One of the best
precise and academic responses concerning this issue is that which was
written by the great scholar Shaykh
Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaani in his book at-Tawassul Anwaa‘uhu wa Ahkaamuhu (available in English under the
title Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings).
Among
the comments that he made on this hadeeth is the following:
As
for us, we believe that this hadeeth does not constitute evidence for them to
support seeking to draw closer to Allah (tawassul) by virtue of the Prophet’s
person; rather it constitutes further evidence for the third type of lawful
tawassul – which is tawassul through the du‘aa’ (supplication) of a righteous
man – because the tawassul of the blind man was only by means of the du‘aa’ of
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) (and not by virtue of
his person). The evidence for what we say is to be found in the hadeeth itself,
in abundance. The most important points are as follows:
1.
The
blind man only came to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
to ask him to pray for him; that was when he said: Pray to Allah to heal me.
This is seeking to draw closer to Allah (tawassul) by virtue of his du‘aa’,
because he knew that the du‘aa’ of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) was more likely to be accepted by Allah, unlike the du‘aa’ of anyone
else. If the blind man’s intention was to draw close to Allah by virtue of the
Prophet’s person or his status, there would have been no need for him to come
to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and ask him to offer
du‘aa’ for him; rather he could have stayed at home and called upon his Lord by
saying, for example: O Allah, I ask You by virtue of Your Prophet and His
status before You to heal me and give me my sight. But he did not do
that.
2.
The
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) promised to offer
supplication (du‘aa’) for him whilst advising him of that which would be better
for him, which is when he said: “If you wish, I shall pray for you; and if you
wish, you can be patient and that will be better for you.”
3.
The
blind man insisted that he offer supplication for him, as he said: Pray for me
(now). This implies that the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) did offer supplication for him, because he (blessings and peace of Allah
be upon him) was the best one in fulfilling promises, and he had promised him
that he would offer supplication for him if he wanted, as stated above. So
there is no doubt that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) offered
supplication for him. Thus what the blind man wanted was done. After that, the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned towards the blind man
out of compassion towards him and out of keenness that Allah answer his
supplications for this man. So he turned to him and advised him of the second
type of lawful tawassul, which is tawassul by virtue of righteous deeds, so as
to combine all kinds of good and righteous deeds (to ensure that his need would
be met). So he instructed him to do wudoo’ and to pray two rak‘ahs, then to
offer supplication for himself. These are all acts of obedience towards Allah,
may He be glorified and exalted, that came before the supplication of the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) for him, and these are included in
the words of the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Seek the means of approach to Him” [al-Maa’idah 5:35], as stated above.
Based
on this, the entire incident revolves around the supplication (du‘aa’) – as is
clear – and there is no mention at all of what they claim.
4.
In
the supplication that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) taught him it says: “O Allah, accept his intercession concerning me.”
It is impossible to interpret this as referring to tawassul by virtue of the
person or status of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him),
because what is meant is: O Allah, accept his (the Prophet’s) intercession for
me; in other words, Accept his supplication for my vision to be restored to me.
The Arabic word shafaa‘ah (translated here as intercession) means supplication.
It says in Lisaan al-‘Arab (8/184): Shafaa‘ah (intercession) is the words of
the shafee‘ (intercessor) to the king asking him to meet the need of someone
else, or the one who asks for something for someone else and intercedes for him
to get what he is seeking… End quote.
Thus
it is proven that the tawassul of the blind man was only by virtue of the
du‘aa’ of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), not by virtue
of his person.
5.
Among
the things that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) taught
the blind man to say was: “and accept my intercession concerning him”. What is
meant is: accept my intercession, that is my supplication, that his
intercession, that is his supplication that my sight be restored, be accepted.
This is the only way in which this sentence can be interpreted; there is no
other way of interpreting it.
Hence
you see those among later generations who hold different views ignoring this
last phrase and not referring to it at all, because it utterly demolishes their
interpretation of the hadeeth.
6.
This
hadeeth is cited by the scholars as being one of the miracles of the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and one of his supplications that
were answered, and an example of what Allah manifested through the blessing of
his supplication of extraordinary events and healing from sickness. By virtue
of the Prophet’s supplication for this blind man, Allah restored his sight.
Hence the scholars of hadeeth, such as al-Bayhaqi and others, narrated it among
the signs of Prophethood (dalaa’il an-nubuwwah). This indicates that the reason
for the healing of the blind man was the supplication of the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him).
If
the reason for the healing of the blind man was that he sought tawassul by
virtue of the Prophet’s status, as it was understood by many later scholars,
that would imply that this healing should also have happened for other blind
people who sought tawassul by virtue of his status and sometimes added to it
the status of all the Prophets and Messengers, and all the close friends of
Allah, the martyrs and the righteous, and the status of anyone who has status
with Allah among the angels, mankind and the jinn! But we do not know, and we
do not think that anyone knows, of any such incident that was fulfilled
throughout the many centuries from the death of the Prophet (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) until the present day.
From
this explanation it becomes clear that what is meant by the words of the blind
man in his du‘aa’, “O Allah, I ask You and I seek to draw close to You by
virtue of Your Prophet Muhammad”, is: I seek to draw close to You by virtue of
the supplication of Your Prophet. The text of the hadeeth does not mention the
supplication, but it is implied. This is something that occurs commonly in
Arabic, as in the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And ask (the people of) the town where we have been, and the caravan in which
we returned, and indeed we are telling the truth” [Yoosuf 12:82]; in the
original text the word “people” is not mentioned but it is implied.
However, I would say: Even if
we assume that the blind man did seek to draw close to Allah by virtue of the
Prophet’s person, that would be a ruling that applied only to him (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) and not to any other Prophet or righteous
person, and applying it to them too is something that would not be acceptable
to sound reasoning, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) is their leader and the best of them all.
It
is possible that this is something that Allah bestowed exclusively upon him and
not them, like many other qualities that were given only to the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), according to saheeh reports. When
it comes to that which was given exclusively to him, there is no room for
applying it to others by analogy. If anyone thinks that the tawassul of the
blind man was by virtue of the Prophet’s person, then he has to apply it to him
only and not to anyone else.
This view was narrated from Imam Ahmad and Shaykh al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam (may Allah have mercy on them) and it is the only conclusion that can be reached by fair-minded academic research.
And Allah is the One Who guides to what is correct.
This view was narrated from Imam Ahmad and Shaykh al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd as-Salaam (may Allah have mercy on them) and it is the only conclusion that can be reached by fair-minded academic research.
And Allah is the One Who guides to what is correct.
End quote from
at-Tawassul, p. 75ff
----
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.[1][64]
M. Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings, trans. Dawud Burbank (Birmingham: al-Hidaayah, 1995).
It will be seen with Allah's permission that the commentary of Albani is a proof against "Salafis" and all those who follow new teachings instead of clinging to the sawad al-a`zam or massive majority of scholars. Their pretext that "there is disagreement about tawassul" and that "we follow proof not scholars" is a sham. There is no disagreement about tawassul among Ahl al-Sunna except the dissent of some lone voices in the matter, such as Ibn Taymiyya who declared travel undertaken to visit the Prophet an act of disobedience: this is not disagreement but shudhudh or dissent, as classified by Imam Ahmad in speaking of the disagreement of the lone scholar with the consensus.
There seems to be little doubt that Albani has achieved the same dubious distinction of dissenting with one and all, as he proudly admits in the following lines of his book, especially the second sentence which we have emphasized:
M. Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Its Rulings, trans. Dawud Burbank (Birmingham: al-Hidaayah, 1995).
It will be seen with Allah's permission that the commentary of Albani is a proof against "Salafis" and all those who follow new teachings instead of clinging to the sawad al-a`zam or massive majority of scholars. Their pretext that "there is disagreement about tawassul" and that "we follow proof not scholars" is a sham. There is no disagreement about tawassul among Ahl al-Sunna except the dissent of some lone voices in the matter, such as Ibn Taymiyya who declared travel undertaken to visit the Prophet an act of disobedience: this is not disagreement but shudhudh or dissent, as classified by Imam Ahmad in speaking of the disagreement of the lone scholar with the consensus.
There seems to be little doubt that Albani has achieved the same dubious distinction of dissenting with one and all, as he proudly admits in the following lines of his book, especially the second sentence which we have emphasized:
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.[2][65] [
[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.[2][65] [
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
non-recognition of any of the established principles of the derivation of
rulings from the primary sources other than what fits the purpose of their
position at the time. Scholars of Ahl al-Sunna may traditionally familiarize
themselves with the fiqh and the usul of other than their own school, but this
is impossible to do with the "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."[3][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.[4][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![5][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,[6][69] Imam
al-Shafi`i,[7][70] Imam Ahmad,[8][71] Ibrahim
al-Harbi, and al-Shawkani as we have already seen, and that of Ibn al-Jawzi,
Nawawi, Ibn al-Humam, and Ibn al-Qayyim as we see below.
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 have already mentioned.[9][72]
The importance of this remark
does not lie in the veracity of the hadith, which is a separate discussion --
and Ibn al-Jawzi clearly considers it 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."[10][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 as-Saheehah (2010)]
3) The blind man's insistence that he (SAW)
should supplicate for him, as he said, 'Supplicate to Him.' Which means that
the Messenger (SAW) definitely did make du'aa for him, since he (SAW) was the
best at fulfilling a promise and he had already promised to make du'aa for him
if he wished as has preceded, and he wanted du'aa from him, and so the point is
established. Also the Prophet (SAW), out of his mercy and desire that Allaah,
the Most High, should answer his du'aa for him, guided the blind man to using
the second type of lawful and prescribed tawassul, which is tawassul by means
of righteous actions, in order to combine the different types of good.
So he ordered him to make wudoo,
and to pray two rak'ahs, and then to make du'aa for himself...
[Albani, Tawassul:
Its Types and Rulings p. 70]
... 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[11][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"[12][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 (al-hamdu lillah) even in the grave:
My life
is a great good for you, you will relate about me and it will be related to
you, and my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me
(in my grave) and if I see goodness I will praise Allah, and if see other than
that I will ask forgiveness of Him for you. [13][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.[14][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.[15][78]
3. It is
further disproved by Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's biographical notice on Malik
al-Dar in his al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-sahaba:
Malik ibn
`Iyad: `Umar's freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet
and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr
and `Umar, Mu`adh, and Abu `Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and
his (Malik's) two sons `Awn and `Abd Allah...
Bukhari in his Tarikh narrated
through Abu Salih Dhakwan from Malik al-Dar that `Umar said during the period
of drought: "O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my
power!" Ibn Abi Khaythama also narrated it in those words but in a longer
hadith:
The
people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the
grave of the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah for rain
for your Community." The Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him:
"Go, see `Umar and tell him: You will be watered, and: You must put your
nose to the grindstone (`alayk al-kaffayn)!" (The man went and told
`Umar.) Then `Umar wept and exclaimed: "O my Lord, I spare no effort
except in what escapes my power!"
We have also narrated in the Fawa'id
of Dawud ibn `Amr and al-Dabbi compiled by al-Baghawi in the narration of `Abd
al-Rahman ibn Sa`id ibn Yarbu` al-Makhzumi from Malik al-Dar: he said:
"`Umar ibn al-Khattab summoned me one day. He had with him a purse of gold
containing four hundred dinars. He said: "Take this to Abu `Ubayda,"
and he mentioned the rest of the story.
Ibn Sa`d mentioned him (Malik
al-Dar) in the first layer of the Successors among the people of Madina and
said: "He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, and he was known." Abu
`Ubayda said of him: "`Umar put him in charge of the dependents in his
household. When `Uthman succeeded him, he put him in charge of financial
allotments and he was then named Malik of the House."
Isma`il al-Qadi related from
`Ali ibn al-Madini: "Malik al-Dar was `Umar's treasurer."[16][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 al-tawassul
bi al-nabi (The compulsion of the ignorant innovator with the permissibility of
seeking means with the Prophet):
Albani
has declared this sound hadith weak upon pretexts frailer than a cobweb in his Tawassul.
He has claimed that Malik al-Dar is unknown (majhul) and has reproduced only
his biographical notice from Ibn Abi Hatim's Kitab al-jarh wa al-ta`dil in
order to give his readers the impression that only one man has narrated from
Malik al-Dar, and that is Abu Salih al-Saman. And it has been decided by Albani
on the basis of what he reproduces from one of the scholars that a man remains
"unknown" until two or more narrate from him. In order to help his
cause he mentioned that al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami did not know Malik al-Dar,
that he is therefore unknown, and that a chain of transmission containing an
unknown is unsound. Then he began to brag saying: "This is a critical
piece of information which none will know but those who have practiced this
science." As for us we say to him: Rather this is deliberate concealment (tadlis)
and deceit and treachery which none commits except one whose heart is filled
with spite and enmity against the Sunna and Tawhid and its people...
Now, if al-Mundhiri and
al-Haythami declared that they did not know him, we say to the searcher for
truth: This means that they did not declare him either trustworthy or
unreliable, because they do not know him. However, there are those who do know
him, such as Ibn Sa`d, and Bukhari, and `Ali ibn al-Madini, and Ibn Hibban, and
al-hafiz Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, and others! Which of the two assessments, O
Albani, is retained: that of those who know him, or that of those who don't?!
It is a wonder that Albani
approves the statement of those who don't know Malik al-Dar's case, selects it,
and prefers it to the statements of those who do know it, which he conceals and
with which he dislikes that anyone be acquainted.
What I will cite from the
sayings of the Imams among the masters of hadith who have recognized Malik
al-Dar as reliable is enough to confirm what al-Sayyid `Abd Allah al-Ghumari
and other hadith scholars as well as some of those who work with hadith have
said: namely, that Albani knows the correct facts in many matters but ... is
not to be relied upon for (assessing) a single hadith. This is the explicit
position of many of the scholars such as the three muhaddiths al-Sayyid Ahmad
al-Ghumari, al-Sayyid `Abd Allah al-Ghumari, and al-Sayyid `Abd al-`Aziz; the
shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda; the muhaddith of India and Pakistan Habib al-Rahman
al-A`zami; Shaykh Isma`il al-Ansari; Shaykh Muhammad `Awwama; Shaykh Mahmud
Sa`id; Shaykh Shu`ayb Arna'ut; and tens of others among the experts in this
field and those that deal with it. The People of Hadith therefore witness that
that man's word is not relied upon in the authentication and weakening of
hadith because he authenticates and weakens according to whim and mood, not
scientific rules, and whoever examines his sayings and writings can verify
this.[17][80]
---
A
REFUTATION OF ALBANI FROM IMAM NAWAWI AND
IMAM IBN AL-HUMAM AL-HANAFI
A further
proof that tawassul through the Prophet after his time is universally recognized
and encouraged in the Shari`a is Imam Nawawi's description of the etiquette of
visiting the grave of the Prophet after the fulfillment of the Pilgrimage in
the Book of Hajj in the Adhkar, where he says:
[After
giving salam to the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and `Umar] Then he [the visitor] returns
to his initial station opposite the Prophet's face, and he uses the Prophet as
his means in his innermost (fa yatawassalu bihi fi haqqi nafsihi), and seeks
his intercession before his exalted and mighty Lord (wa yatashaffa`u bihi ila
rabbihi subhanahu wa ta`ala)... and he avails himself of this noble spot, and
glorifies and praises and magnifies Allah and invokes blessings on His
Messenger. Let him do all that abundantly.[1][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 Oft-returning,
Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my
sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord..."[2][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 tawassul
of 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 adh-Dhahabee 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.
---
The Hadith of the Man in Need
Abdullah al-Ghumari's
Reply to al-Albani and his Follower's
The following is a short excerpt from the document that was
attached in full HERE
The article is a very
useful scholarly response to the objections raised by "Salafi" sheikh al-Albani and his
followers!
Abdullah al-Ghumari mentioned in his
response to al-Albani.
[…]
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 (da‘if) . By using guile and deception he prevails upon his readers that he is right; whereas, he is wrong.
Rather, he is a sinner
and a hoodwinker. By such duplicity he has succeeded in misguiding his
followers who trust him and think that he is right.
One of those who has been deceived by him is Hamdi al-Salafi who edited al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir . He had the impudence to declare a
rigorously authentic hadith weak (da‘if / 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] .
Al-Tabarani reported
From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif
A man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn trying to get something done for himself.However, ‘Uthman didn’t pay any attention to him, nor did he look after his need. That man went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and complained about that to him. ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif said to him, “Go and perform ablution (wudu), then go to the mosque and pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then say: ‘O Allah, I ask You and I approach You through your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I approach my Lord through you that my need be fulfilled,’ then mention your need. Thereafter come to me that I might go with you.”
Then the man went away and did what he was told. After that he went to the door of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn; whereupon the doorkeeper took him by the hand and ushered him into ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn who sat him down beside him on his mat and said to him, “What can I do for you?” He told him what he needed and ‘Uthmàn had that done for him and then he said to him, “I didn’t remember your problem until now. Whenever you need anything come to me.” Thereupon the man left him and went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and said, “May Allah bless you, ‘Uthmàn wouldn’t look after me, nor even pay attention to me until you spoke to him about me.” ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif replied, “I swear by Allah that I didn’t speak to him.
Actually, I saw a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] and complain to him about losing his sight. The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] said to him, “Wouldn’t you rather show patience?” He replied, “O Messenger of Allah, I don’t have a guide and the matter has become an ordeal for me.” The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] said to him, “Go and make ablution (wudu), then pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then make this supplication (du‘a’) . I swear by Allah, we hadn’t gone away, nor had we remained long time talk when the man returned as if he had never suffered any affliction.
Al-Tabarani declared this report to be rigorously authentic (sahih / 16 ) ;
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] .
Al-Tabarani reported
From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif
A man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn trying to get something done for himself.However, ‘Uthman didn’t pay any attention to him, nor did he look after his need. That man went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and complained about that to him. ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif said to him, “Go and perform ablution (wudu), then go to the mosque and pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then say: ‘O Allah, I ask You and I approach You through your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I approach my Lord through you that my need be fulfilled,’ then mention your need. Thereafter come to me that I might go with you.”
Then the man went away and did what he was told. After that he went to the door of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn; whereupon the doorkeeper took him by the hand and ushered him into ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn who sat him down beside him on his mat and said to him, “What can I do for you?” He told him what he needed and ‘Uthmàn had that done for him and then he said to him, “I didn’t remember your problem until now. Whenever you need anything come to me.” Thereupon the man left him and went to ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif and said, “May Allah bless you, ‘Uthmàn wouldn’t look after me, nor even pay attention to me until you spoke to him about me.” ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif replied, “I swear by Allah that I didn’t speak to him.
Actually, I saw a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] and complain to him about losing his sight. The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] said to him, “Wouldn’t you rather show patience?” He replied, “O Messenger of Allah, I don’t have a guide and the matter has become an ordeal for me.” The Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] said to him, “Go and make ablution (wudu), then pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, then make this supplication (du‘a’) . I swear by Allah, we hadn’t gone away, nor had we remained long time talk when the man returned as if he had never suffered any affliction.
Al-Tabarani declared this report to be rigorously authentic (sahih / 16 ) ;
whereas,
Hamdi al-Salafi contradicted him saying:
The foregoing discussion is misleading and distorted in several ways.
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 Hunaif’s instructions to the
man who sought the help of ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affan] which heretics (mubtadi‘ah)
adduce attempting to prove the legitimacy of their heretical practice of
calling the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] for his intercession. [That
part of the story is in doubt for the reasons which we will explain.]
Firstly, as al-Tabarani mentioned, Shabib [who is one of the narrators mentioned in the report’s chain of narration (sanad) is alone in reporting this hadith.
Then, Shabib’s narrations are not bad (la ba’sa bihi) on two conditions: first, that his son Ahmad be the one who narrates from him; second, that Shabib’s narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid. However, in the present case, Shabib’s narration is reported by [three persons]: Ibn Wahb, and Shabib’s two sons Ismà‘il and Ahmad.
As for Ibn Wahb, extremely reliable narrators (al-thiqah) criticized Ibn Wahb’s narrations from Shabib, as they criticized Shabib himself. And as for Shabib’s son, Isma‘il, he is unknown.
Although Ahmad also reports this hadith from Shabib, it is not Shabib’s report from Yunus ibn Yazid [which (as Hamdu pretends) is what the experts in narration stipulated as the condition for the correctness of Shabib’s narrations].
Furthermore, the experts in narration (al-muhaddithun) are at variance concerning the text of this hadith which they narrate from Ahmad [ibn Shabib].
Ibn al-Sunni reported the hadith in his ‘Amal al-Yaumwa ’l-Lailah and al-Hakim reported it with three different chains of narration (sanad) neither of them mentioning the story [of ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see ‘Uthmàn].
Al-Hakim reported the hadith by way ‘Aun ibn ‘Amàrah al- Basri from Rauh ibn al-Qasim.
My teacher (Shaikh) Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani:“
Even though ‘Aun is weak (da‘if), still his version of the hadith (riwàyah) [without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is preferable to Shabib’s since Rauh’s narration agreeswith the narrations of Shu‘bah and Hamàd ibn Salamah through Abu Ja‘f`ar al-Khatmi[without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif]."
---
Firstly, as al-Tabarani mentioned, Shabib [who is one of the narrators mentioned in the report’s chain of narration (sanad) is alone in reporting this hadith.
Then, Shabib’s narrations are not bad (la ba’sa bihi) on two conditions: first, that his son Ahmad be the one who narrates from him; second, that Shabib’s narration be from Yunus ibn Yazid. However, in the present case, Shabib’s narration is reported by [three persons]: Ibn Wahb, and Shabib’s two sons Ismà‘il and Ahmad.
As for Ibn Wahb, extremely reliable narrators (al-thiqah) criticized Ibn Wahb’s narrations from Shabib, as they criticized Shabib himself. And as for Shabib’s son, Isma‘il, he is unknown.
Although Ahmad also reports this hadith from Shabib, it is not Shabib’s report from Yunus ibn Yazid [which (as Hamdu pretends) is what the experts in narration stipulated as the condition for the correctness of Shabib’s narrations].
Furthermore, the experts in narration (al-muhaddithun) are at variance concerning the text of this hadith which they narrate from Ahmad [ibn Shabib].
Ibn al-Sunni reported the hadith in his ‘Amal al-Yaumwa ’l-Lailah and al-Hakim reported it with three different chains of narration (sanad) neither of them mentioning the story [of ‘Uthman ibn Hunaif and the man who wanted to see ‘Uthmàn].
Al-Hakim reported the hadith by way ‘Aun ibn ‘Amàrah al- Basri from Rauh ibn al-Qasim.
My teacher (Shaikh) Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani:“
Even though ‘Aun is weak (da‘if), still his version of the hadith (riwàyah) [without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is preferable to Shabib’s since Rauh’s narration agreeswith the narrations of Shu‘bah and Hamàd ibn Salamah through Abu Ja‘f`ar al-Khatmi[without the story of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif]."
---
The foregoing discussion 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 Dalà ’ilu’l-Nubuwah19 by way of:
Ya‘qub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sa‘id reported to me that his father reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn and he mentioned the story in its entirety.
Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn is [Abu Yusuf] al-Fasawi (d. 177 h) 20, the Hàfiz,21 the Imàm,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 ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is quite authentic. Other [specialists in the science of hadith and its narrators] also proclaimed the hadith to be rigorously authentic (sahih) . Hàfiz al- Mundhiri25 mentioned in his al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib: p. 606, vol. 2;26 and Hafiz al-Haithami27 mentioned it in his Majma‘ al-Zawà’id: p. 179, vol. 2.28
Second Point
Ahmad ibn Shabib is one of the narrators that al-Bukhari29 depended on; al-Bukhàri reported hadith from Ahmad ibn Shabib both in his Sahih and in his al-Adab al-Mufrad. Abu Hàtim al-Ràzi30 also declared him to be utterly reliable (thiqah) , and both he and Abu Zur‘ah 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.
Ahmad’s father, Shabib ibn Sa‘id 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 Zur‘ah, Abu Hatim, al-Nisà’i, al-Dhuhali, al-Dàraqutni , 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 (là ba’sa 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
The foregoing relates to the authentication (ta‘dil) 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 Shabib’s copy of al-Zuhri’s book not intending to intimate anything about the rest of Shabib’s narrations. So what Al-Albàni claims [namely, that Shabib’s narrations are authentic on the condition that he narrate from Yunus ibn Yazid] is deception and a breach of academic and religious trust.
What I have said [about Shabib’s unconditional reliability] is further corroborated by the fact that [another hadith which Shabib related; namely] the hadith about the blind man [who came to the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]to plead him to pray for him] was declared to be authentic by the hadith experts (huffaz /42) although Shabib did not narrate this hadith from Yunus by way of al-Zuhri. Rather, he related it from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim.
Furthermore, al-Albani claims that since some narrators whose hadith are mentioned by Ibn al-Sunni and al-Hakim did not mention the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif], the story is doubtful (da‘if ) . This is another example of Al-Albàni’s trickery. People who have some knowledge about the principles of the science of hadith know that some narrators report a given hadith in its entirety, while others may choose to abridge it according to their purpose at hand.
Al-Bukhari, for example, does that routinely in his Sahih where 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 ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] in al-Bayhaqi’s report is an extraordinary Imàm: Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn. Abu Zur‘ah al-Dimashqi says about him: “Two men from the noblest of mankind came to us; one of them, Ya‘qub ibn Sufyàn the most widely-traveled of the two, defies the people of
Al-Albàni ’s declaring the narration of ‘Aun, which in fact is weak, to be better than the narration of those who narrated the story [of ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is a third aspect of Al-Albani’s duplicity and fraud because when al-Hakim related the hadith of the blind man in an abridged form by way of ‘Aun, he remarked :
Shabib ibn Sa‘id al-Habati has given the same hadith by way of Rauh ibn al-Qàsim with some additions to the text (matn ) and the chain of narrators (isnàd) . The decision in the matter is Shabib’s since he is utterly reliable (thiqah) and trustworthy (ma’mun) .
What al-Hakim says emphasizes a precept which is universally recognized by the experts in the science of hadith (al-muhaddithun) and the principles of the holy law (usul al-fiqh) ; namely, that additional wording related by a narrator who is utterly reliable (thiqah) is acceptable (maqbulah ) , and, furthermore, someone who remembered something is a proof against someone who didn’t remember it.
Third Point
Al-Albani saw al-Hakim’s statement but he didn’t like it, so he ignored it, and obstinately and dishonestly insisted on the superiority of ‘Aun’s weak narration.
It has been made clear that the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is rigorously authentic (sahih) in spite of Al-Albàni’s [and Ibn Taimiyah’s] deceitful attempts to discredit it. The story shows that seeking the Prophet’s [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]intercession after his passing away is permissible since the 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 (shari‘ah) , for it has its weight in the field of deducing (istinbat ) the detailed rules of the holy law (shari‘ah) .
We say according to the understanding of the narrator for the sake of argument; otherwise, in actuality, ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif’s instructing the man to seek the intercession of the Prophet was according to what he had heard from the Prophet as the hadith of the blind man [which ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif himself related] establishes.
Ibn Abi Khaithamah stated in his Tàrikh [which is a genre of writing which deals with the history and reputation of narrators of hadith] :
Muslim ibn Ibràhim related to me that Hammàd ibn Salamah said: Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami related to me from ‘Amarah ibn Khuzaimah from ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif :
A blind man came to the Prophetand said: “I have lost my sight. Pray to Allah for me.”
He answered: “Go and make ablution and then pray two cycles (rak‘ah) of prayer, and then say: ‘O Allah, I ask You and I approach you through my Prophet Muĥammad, The Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession with Allah that my sight should be restored. O Allah, accept my intercession for myself and accept the intercession of my Prophet for the restoration of my sight.’ If ever you have any need do like that.”
The chain of narration (isnàd) of this hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih). The last clause of the hadith constitutes the express permission of the Prophet to seek his intercession whenever there occurred any need.Not withstanding, Ibn Taimiyah objected on feeble grounds that this last clause comprehended some covert technical defect (‘illah) [which prejudices the authenticity of the hadith or at least its last clause]. I have demonstrated the invalidity of those grounds elsewhere.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 (al-ijmà‘ 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-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah]
Hafiz Ibn Hajr remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:
“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ” 46
Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything. ” 47
Another example of Ibn Taimiyah’s audacity in rejecting hadith is the case of the hadith:
“The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] ordered the doors which opened on the mosque from the street to be sealed, but he left ‘Ali’s door [open].”
This hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih). Ibn al-Jauzi 48 was mistaken by mentioning it in his collection of forged hadiths, al-Maudu‘àt. Hafiz [Ibn Hajr] corrected him in his al-Qaul al-Musaddad: “Ibn Taimiyah because of his well-known bias against ‘Ali was not content with Ibn al-Jauzi’s declaration that the hadith was forged, but took the initiative to add from his own bag [of fraud] thepretence that the hadith experts (al-muhaddithun) are agreed that the hadith is forged. Ibn Taimiyah has rejected so many hadith simply because they are irreconcilable with his opinions that it is hard to keep track of the instances.49
Fourth Point
In order to conciliate al-Albàni, let us suppose that the story [about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is weak, and that the Ibn Abi Khaithamah’s version of the hadith [with the addition: Wheneveryou have any need do like that.] is defective (mu‘allal) as Ibn Taimiyah would have it; still the hadith of the blind man is quite enough to prove the permissibility of seeking the intercession of the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]since the fact that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]taught the blind man to seek his intercession on that occasion shows the propriety of seeking it in all circumstances.
Moreover, it is not allowable to refer to such intercession as a heretical departure (bid‘ah ), nor is it allowable to arbitrarily restrict such intercession to the lifetime of the Prophet .
Indeed, whoever restricts it to his lifetime is really a heretic50 because he has disqualified a rigorously authentic hadith and precluded its implementation, and that is unlawful (haram).
Al-Albàni, may Allah forgive him, is bold to claim conditionality an abrogation simply because a text prejudices his preconceived opinions and persuasion. If the hadith of the blind man was a special dispensation for him, the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] would have made that clear as he made it clear to Abu Burdah that the sacrifice of a two year old goat would fulfill his duty; whereas, it would not suffice for others. Furthermore, it is not admissible to suppose that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam] might have delayed explaining a matter in detail when his followers needed that knowledge at that time.
A Subterfuge and its
Preclusion
Suppose somebody says that the reason we have to restrict the application of this hadith to the lifetime of the Prophet is that it involves calling (nidà’) the Prophet[whereas, it is not possible to call him after his death.] We reply that this objection is to be rejected because there are numerous reports (mutawatir) from the Prophet concerning his instruction about what one should recite during the tashahhud 51of prayer, and that contains the greeting of peace (salàm) 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 Mu‘àwiyah taught the people from the mimbar53. Thereafter, it became an issue on which there was consensus (ijmà‘) as Ibn Hazm 54 and Ibn Taimiyah affirmed.
Al-Albàni, because he is prone to schism (ibtidà‘ ), violated the consensus and insisted on following an opinion reported of Ibn Mas‘ud: “Then when he died we said: Peace be on the Prophet (al-salàmu ‘alà al-nabiyu).” Indeed, violating the hadith and consensus is the essence of heresy (ibtidà‘ )
Furthermore, there are authentic reports from the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]which inform us that our deeds are presented to the Prophet [in his blessed grave] as are our supplications for his peace (al-salàm ) and honor (al-salah / 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 (tawàtur / 56 and consensus ( ‘ijmà’ ) establish that the Prophet is alive in his grave, and that his blessed body does not decay. After all that, how can anybody dare to claim that it is not allowable to call the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]in seeking his intercession? After all, is that in any different than calling him in tashahhud?
Unfortunately, Al-Albàni is perversely obstinate and opinionated, as are the Albani’ites, [that is, his blind, fanatic followers].So much for my rebuttal of Al-Albàni.
As for the person called Hamdi al-Salafi, there’s no need to refute him separately because he merely echoes Al-Albàni.
Another thing which I should establish here is that Al-Albàni is not to be depended on in his judgments about hadith authenticity, nor their weakness because he routinely employs a variety of tactics to mislead, and he does not disdain to betray his trust in transmitting the opinions of the ‘ulamà’ (religious scholars) distorting their words and meanings. Moreover, he has had the impudence to oppose the consensus and to claim the abrogation (naskh) of texts without proof. He commits such excesses because of his ignorance of the principles [of the science of fiqh] and the rules of inference and deduction (al-istinbat )
He claims he is struggling against heretical innovation (bid‘ah ) by forbidding the practice of intercession, and by forbidding people to use the epithet sayyidinà when mentioning the name of the Prophet [sallallahu alayhi wa sallam], and by forbidding them to recite the Qur‘àn for the sake [of the souls] of the deceased.
However, the fact of the matter is that by doing that he commits a real heresy (bid‘ah) by forbidding what Allah has permitted, and by verbally abusing the Asharites 57 and the Sufis 58.
[...]
Al-Albàni’s 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 ‘ulamà’ and the illustrious personages of Islàm; all that is an affliction from Allah, yet he doesn’t realize it.
Indeed, he is one of those [to whom the Qur‘àn referred by its words:] who thinks they are doing good; however, how wrong is what they think.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. [ ...]
---
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 Tabarani’s version are as follows:
From Ibn Wahb from Shabib from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami al-Madani from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif: ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif
2) Imam al-Bayhaqi in Dalà ’ilu’l-Nubuwah reports the hadith with the following sanad:
Ya‘qub ibn Sufyan who said that Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sa‘id reported to me that his father [Shabib] reported to him from Rauh ibn al-Qàsim from Abu Ja‘far al-Khatami from Abu Usamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunaif that a man was going to ‘Uthmàn ibn ‘Affàn and he mentioned the story in its entirety.
[Take note: Imam Bayhaqi’s chain does not contain the narrator Ibn Wahb]
Here is the exact wording from al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il (no. 2417) with highlighting of what was mentioned above in point no. 2:
أخبرنا
أبو سعيد عبد الملك بن أبي عثمان الزاهد ، رحمه الله ، أنبأنا الإمام أبو
بكر محمد بن علي بن إسماعيل الشاشي القفال ، قال : أنبأنا أبو عروبة ،
حدثنا العباس بن الفرج ، حدثنا إسماعيل بن شبيب ، حدثنا أبي ، عن روح بن
القاسم ، عن أبي جعفر المديني ، عن أبي أمامة بن سهل بن حنيف أن رجلا كان
يختلف إلى عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه في حاجته ، وكان عثمان لا يلتفت إليه
ولا ينظر في حاجته ، فلقي عثمان بن حنيف فشكى إليه ذلك ، فقال له عثمان بن
حنيف : ائت الميضأة فتوضأ ، ثم ائت المسجد فصل ركعتين ، ثم قل : اللهم إني
أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة ، يا محمد
إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فتقضي لي حاجتي ، واذكر حاجتك ، ثم رح حتى أرفع ،
فانطلق الرجل وصنع ذلك ، ثم أتى باب عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه ، فجاء
البواب ، فأخذ بيده فأدخله على عثمان ، فأجلسه معه على الطنفسة ، فقال :
انظر ما كانت لك من حاجة ، ثم إن الرجل خرج من عنده فلقي عثمان بن حنيف ،
فقال له : جزاك الله خيرا ما كان ينظر في حاجتي ولا يلتفت إلي حتى كلمته ،
فقال عثمان بن حنيف : ما كلمته ولكني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
وجاءه ضرير فشكى إليه ذهاب بصره فقال له النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : "
أوتصبر ؟ " ، فقال : يا رسول الله ، ليس لي قائد ، وقد شق علي " ، فقال : "
ائت الميضأة فتوضأ ، وصل ركعتين ثم قل : اللهم ، إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك
بنبيك نبي الرحمة ، يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فيجلي لي عن بصري ، اللهم
شفعه في وشفعني في نفسي " قال عثمان : فوالله ما تفرقنا طال بنا الحديث
حتى دخل الرجل كأن لم يكن به ضرر ، وقد رواه أحمد بن شبيب ، عن سعيد ، عن
أبيه أيضا بطوله . أخبرنا أبو علي الحسن بن
أحمد بن إبراهيم بن شاذان ، أنبأنا عبد الله بن جعفر بن درستويه ، حدثنا
يعقوب بن سفيان ، حدثنا أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد ، فذكره بطوله . وهذه
زيادة ألحقتها به في شهر رمضان سنة أربع وأربعين ، ورواه أيضا هشام
الدستوائي ، عن أبي جعفر ، عن أبي أمامة بن سهل ، عن عمه وهو عثمان بن حنيف
The salafis have attempted to weaken these chains due to the presence in it of Shabib [ibn Sa‘id al-Tamimi al-Habati al-Basri] so it is important that we clarify his status amongst the scholars of Hadith.
The problem the Salafis have with this narrator as I can ascertain from reading shaykh al-Albani’s book on Tawassul is as follows:
They believe him to be a weak narrator from memory and his hadith are rejected unless, they claim, his narrations are from his book which he narrated from Yunus and his son in turn narrated from him. So, according to the Salafis, unless the chain containing Shabib is: [ Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus ] the hadith containing Shabib are all weak.
InshaAllah we shall expose the error in this claim and prove that it is not supported by any of the Ulema.
SECTION 1:
First, let us look at the authentication [ta’dil] of Shabib amongst the Ulema:
Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 4, no. 534) mentioned Shabib as follows:
[ 534 ] خ خد س البخاري وأبي داود في الناسخ والمنسوخ والنسائي شبيب بن سعيد التميمي الحبطي أبو سعيد البصري روى عن أبان بن أبي عياش وروح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي وغيره وعنه بن وهب ويحيى بن أيوب وزيد بن بشر الحضرمي وابنه أحمد بن شبيب قال بن المديني ثقة كان يختلف في تجارة إلى مصر وكتابه كتاب صحيح وقال أبو زرعة لا بأس به وقال أبو حاتم كان عنده كتب يونس بن زيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به وقال النسائي ليس به بأس وقال بن عدي ولشبيب نسخة الزهري عنده عن يونس عن الزهري أحاديث مستقيمة وحدث عنه بن وهب بأحاديث مناكير وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قلت وقال بن يونس في تاريخ الغرباء مات بالبصرة سنة ست وثمانين ومائة فيما ذكره البخاري وقال الدارقطني ثقةونقل بن خلفون توثيقه عن الذهلي ولما ذكره بن عدي وقال الكلام المتقدم قال بعده ولعل شبيبا لما قدم مصر في تجارته كتب عنه بن وهب من حفظه فغلط ووهم وأرجو أن لا يتعمد الكذب وإذا حدث عنه ابنه أحمد فكأنه شبيب آخر يعني يجود وقال الطبراني في الأوسط ثقة
Shabib in Ta’rikh al-Kabir of Imam al-Bukhari (vol. 4)
[ 2628 ] شبيب بن سعيد نا يونس بن يزيد وعن محمد بن عمر روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد البصري
Shabib ibn Sa’eed in Thiqat of Ibn Hibban
[ 13614 ] شبيب بن سعيد الحبطي أبو سعيد من أهل مصر يروى عن محمد بن عمرو ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي روى عنه بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب وهو الذي يروى عن شعبة وروح بن القاسم
Shabib in al Jarh wa Ta’dil (4/359, no. 1572) of Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi
[ 1572 ]
شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو
روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
From the above it can be collated that the following made Tawthiq on Shabib :
Ibn al-Madini said: Thiqa – Trustworthy
Abu Zur’a: La Ba’sa bi-hi – There is no harm in him
Abu Hatim: Wa huwa sâlih al-Hadith la ba’sa bihi: He is passable in Hadith, there is no harm in him
Nasa’i: Laysa bihi ba’s – There is no harm (in his reports)
Ibn Hibban listed him in his book on Thiqat (trustworthy narrators)
Daraqutni: Thiqa – Trustworthy (This tawthiq from al-Daraqutni was reported by his pupil, Abu Abdullah al-Hakim in his Sawalat (no. 353) )
Al-Dhuhli made Tawthiq (declared him Thiqa)
Tabarani declared him Thiqa in al-Awsat (and in his al-Saghir, no. 509)
Bukhari listed him in his Ta’rikh al-Kabir and made no disparagement on him at all, even though he mentioned that Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib. We also know that Al-Bukhari narrated via him in his Sahih.
We also know that: Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1/526) declared Shabib to be Thiqa Ma’mun – Trustworthy and reliable – which is a high form of making tawthiq on a narrator
So, from what was mentioned by Sh. Mamduh and provided by Sh. Abul Hasan above we conclude the following:
A. The following ulema have declared Shabib to be utterly reliable / THIQA:
The salafis have attempted to weaken these chains due to the presence in it of Shabib [ibn Sa‘id al-Tamimi al-Habati al-Basri] so it is important that we clarify his status amongst the scholars of Hadith.
The problem the Salafis have with this narrator as I can ascertain from reading shaykh al-Albani’s book on Tawassul is as follows:
They believe him to be a weak narrator from memory and his hadith are rejected unless, they claim, his narrations are from his book which he narrated from Yunus and his son in turn narrated from him. So, according to the Salafis, unless the chain containing Shabib is: [ Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus ] the hadith containing Shabib are all weak.
InshaAllah we shall expose the error in this claim and prove that it is not supported by any of the Ulema.
SECTION 1:
First, let us look at the authentication [ta’dil] of Shabib amongst the Ulema:
Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 4, no. 534) mentioned Shabib as follows:
[ 534 ] خ خد س البخاري وأبي داود في الناسخ والمنسوخ والنسائي شبيب بن سعيد التميمي الحبطي أبو سعيد البصري روى عن أبان بن أبي عياش وروح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي وغيره وعنه بن وهب ويحيى بن أيوب وزيد بن بشر الحضرمي وابنه أحمد بن شبيب قال بن المديني ثقة كان يختلف في تجارة إلى مصر وكتابه كتاب صحيح وقال أبو زرعة لا بأس به وقال أبو حاتم كان عنده كتب يونس بن زيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به وقال النسائي ليس به بأس وقال بن عدي ولشبيب نسخة الزهري عنده عن يونس عن الزهري أحاديث مستقيمة وحدث عنه بن وهب بأحاديث مناكير وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قلت وقال بن يونس في تاريخ الغرباء مات بالبصرة سنة ست وثمانين ومائة فيما ذكره البخاري وقال الدارقطني ثقةونقل بن خلفون توثيقه عن الذهلي ولما ذكره بن عدي وقال الكلام المتقدم قال بعده ولعل شبيبا لما قدم مصر في تجارته كتب عنه بن وهب من حفظه فغلط ووهم وأرجو أن لا يتعمد الكذب وإذا حدث عنه ابنه أحمد فكأنه شبيب آخر يعني يجود وقال الطبراني في الأوسط ثقة
Shabib in Ta’rikh al-Kabir of Imam al-Bukhari (vol. 4)
[ 2628 ] شبيب بن سعيد نا يونس بن يزيد وعن محمد بن عمر روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد البصري
Shabib ibn Sa’eed in Thiqat of Ibn Hibban
[ 13614 ] شبيب بن سعيد الحبطي أبو سعيد من أهل مصر يروى عن محمد بن عمرو ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي روى عنه بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب وهو الذي يروى عن شعبة وروح بن القاسم
Shabib in al Jarh wa Ta’dil (4/359, no. 1572) of Ibn Abi Hatim al Razi
[ 1572 ]
شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو
روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
From the above it can be collated that the following made Tawthiq on Shabib :
Ibn al-Madini said: Thiqa – Trustworthy
Abu Zur’a: La Ba’sa bi-hi – There is no harm in him
Abu Hatim: Wa huwa sâlih al-Hadith la ba’sa bihi: He is passable in Hadith, there is no harm in him
Nasa’i: Laysa bihi ba’s – There is no harm (in his reports)
Ibn Hibban listed him in his book on Thiqat (trustworthy narrators)
Daraqutni: Thiqa – Trustworthy (This tawthiq from al-Daraqutni was reported by his pupil, Abu Abdullah al-Hakim in his Sawalat (no. 353) )
Al-Dhuhli made Tawthiq (declared him Thiqa)
Tabarani declared him Thiqa in al-Awsat (and in his al-Saghir, no. 509)
Bukhari listed him in his Ta’rikh al-Kabir and made no disparagement on him at all, even though he mentioned that Ibn Wahb narrated from Shabib. We also know that Al-Bukhari narrated via him in his Sahih.
We also know that: Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1/526) declared Shabib to be Thiqa Ma’mun – Trustworthy and reliable – which is a high form of making tawthiq on a narrator
So, from what was mentioned by Sh. Mamduh and provided by Sh. Abul Hasan above we conclude the following:
A. The following ulema have declared Shabib to be utterly reliable / THIQA:
Ali Ibn al-Madini,
al-Dhuhli,
al-Daraqutni,
al-Tabarani,
Ibn Hibban,
and Imam al-Hakim (1:526=1:707) who actually said THIQA MA’MUN, which is even stronger.
B. The following Ulema said about Shabib: “la ba'sa bihi”.
[Imam al-Lacknawi in al-Raf` wal-Takmil said this is identical with thiqa in its usage and is “all that is required in order to authenticate a narrator and render what he narrates authentic (sahih) and warrant its mention in the two Sahih’s” according to Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh.]
Abu Zur`ah,
Nasa'i,
Abu Hatim.
The foregoing relates to the authentication (ta‘dil) of Shabib.
SECTION 2:
Next, let us look at the made up false claim of the Salafis that only Shabib’s narrations from his books which contained the hadith he narrated from Yunus are reliable.
We shall bring the actual statements of the Ulema they use to back up their illogical deductions.
‘Ali ibn al-Madini said about Shabib:
“He was utterly reliable (thiqah). He used to go to Egypt
Mahmud Sa‘id Mamduh points out in Raf‘ al-Minarah fi Takhrij
Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah , pp. 99-100, that the accuracy ( ضبط ) of a narrator [which along with integrity
(‘adàlah / عدالة ) establishes
reliability] is of two kinds: accuracy in respect of his memory ( الحفظضبط), and accuracy in respect of what he
has written down (dabt al-kitàbah).
‘Ali al-Madini first declares that Shabib is utterly reliable (thiqah) without stating any condition. Thereafter, he reinforces that by stating that his book is also authentic without making his reliability conditional on being from that book.
Thus it blatantly clear that the ta’weel made by the Salafis from Ali al-Madini’s statement that only his narrations from his books are reliable is a lame illogical and unfounded inference clearly influenced by their desire to make the hadith weak at all costs!
Similarly this conclusion cannot be drawn from what Ibn Abi Hatim says about Shabib in al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil:
‘Ali al-Madini first declares that Shabib is utterly reliable (thiqah) without stating any condition. Thereafter, he reinforces that by stating that his book is also authentic without making his reliability conditional on being from that book.
Thus it blatantly clear that the ta’weel made by the Salafis from Ali al-Madini’s statement that only his narrations from his books are reliable is a lame illogical and unfounded inference clearly influenced by their desire to make the hadith weak at all costs!
Similarly this conclusion cannot be drawn from what Ibn Abi Hatim says about Shabib in al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil:
شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو
روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
Ibn Abi Hatim says [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 inEgypt
As you notice there is no stipulation that Shabib’s 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-Madini in order to disparage all of his other narrations from other narrators by way of memory or otherwise is a fallacy and not supported in their statements whatsoever.
All this goes to show how unreliable the Salafis are in terms of manipulating the texts of the Ulema of old.
Now, some mention of two scholars who did place a condition on Shabib’s reliability – namely that it not be Ibn Wahb who narrate from him:
Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil Fil-Du'afa:
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو
روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
Ibn Abi Hatim says [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
As you notice there is no stipulation that Shabib’s 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-Madini in order to disparage all of his other narrations from other narrators by way of memory or otherwise is a fallacy and not supported in their statements whatsoever.
All this goes to show how unreliable the Salafis are in terms of manipulating the texts of the Ulema of old.
Now, some mention of two scholars who did place a condition on Shabib’s reliability – namely that it not be Ibn Wahb who narrate from him:
Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil Fil-Du'afa:
^[rough translation 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 Adi’s statement at face value.
The situation is clarified by the fact that Shabib went to
Bottom line: what is criticized is the transmission: Ibn Wahb --> Shabib
Ibn `Adi praises Ahmad’s narration of Shabib’s ahadeeth from Yunus.
But, as you may have noticed in the above notice from Ibn Adi there is no stipulation from him that Shabib’s narration must be from Yunus ibn Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih).
He merely praises it – as does Ibn Abi Hatim's in Al-Jarh Wa Al-Ta'dil and Ali al-Madani as shown above.
This, of course, does not mean that if Shabib were to narrate from anyone else it would not be accepted.
Anyone who claims as such is making an unfounded ta’wil based on his hawwa!
If Ibn Adi’s statement is taken literally, then this is all that we can gain from it:
1- The narration of Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus is excellent
2- What Ibn Wahb reported from Shabib in Egypt is not accepted, and in it are mistakes
3- There is nothing preventing the narrations that don't fall under the conditions referred to in #1 and #2 from being sahih.
Another scholar whose statements are misinterpreted and manipulated by the Salafis is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
Salafis often mention that Ibn Hajar writes about Shabib, in his Muqaddimah: "al-Bukhari narrated some ahadith from him via his son, which he narrated from Yunus. And he never narrated from him anything from anyone other than Yunus..." (1/429)
This point is somehow meant to support a claim that Shabib’s narrations are only acceptable to Ibn Hajar if it fulfills the chain Ahmad – Shabib – Yunus.
This is, of course, nonsense!
We have already mentioned that yes, this chain is impeccable – but no, there is no evidence in this statement that Shabib’s narrations from other than Yunus are not acceptable. We accept that Imam Bukhari only made use of this chain but there are thousands of sahih Hadith with chains that the Imam did not use – does it make them weak?
Ibn Hajar’s final word on Shabib, is found in al-Taqrib where he [like Ibn Adi] questions the narrations of Ibn Wahb but clearly does not mention any condition that his narrations be from Yunus alone. He says:
"There is no harm [la ba’s] in the narration of his son [Ahmad ibn Shabib] from him, unlike that of Ibn Wahb."
شبيب ابن سعيد التميمي الحبطي بفتح المهملة والموحدة البصري أبو سعيد لا بأس بحديثه من رواية ابنه أحمد عنه لا من رواية ابن وهب من صغار الثامنة مات سنة ست وثمانين خ خد س
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 Shabib’s narration only be acceptable if they are from Yunus.
Moreover, Shabib was from
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.
----
%2BON%2BUSING%2BTAWASSUL%2BTO%2BREQUEST%2BFOR%2BNEEDS%2Bal-wasiyyah-translated-by-aisha-bewley.jpg)
---
(Edited by ADHM)
---
IBN QUDAMAH AL
Imam Muwaffaq ad-Din
Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, the mujtahid of the Hanbali madhab, in his book “Al
Wasiyyah”, writes under the subheading “Talab al Haja (request of need)”:
وإذا كانت لك حاجة إلى الله تعالى تريد طلبها منه فتوضأ ، فأحسن وضوءك ، واركع ركعتين ، وأثن على الله عز وجل ، وصلَ على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ثم قل : لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ الله الحَلِيمُ الكَريمُ، سُبحَانَ رَبِّ العَرشِ العَظيمِ الحَمْدُ للهِ رَبِّ العَالمِينِ، أَسأَلُكَ مُوجِبَاتِ رَحمَتِكَ وَعَزَائمَ مَغفِرَتِكَ وَالغَنيمَةَ مِنْ كُلِّ بِرٍّ، وَالسَّلامَةَ مِنْ كُلِّ إِثْمٍ، لا تَدَعْ لي ذَنباً إِلاَّ غَفَرْتَهْ وَلا هَمَّاً إِلاَّ فَرَّجْتَهْ، وَلا حَاجةً هِيَ لَكَ رِضاً إِلاَّ قَضَيتَهَا يَا أَرحَمَ الرَّاحمين وإن قلت : اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فيقضي لي حاجتي،وتذكر حاجتك وروي عن السلف أنهم كانوا يستنجحون حوائجهم بركعتين يصليهما ثم يقول : اللهم بك أستفتح وبك أستنجح ، وإليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أتوجه ، اللهم ذلل لي صعوبة أمري ، وسهل من الخير أكثر مما أرجو ، واصرف عني من الشر أكثر مما أخاف .
“When seeking for a need to be fulfilled from Allah ta’ala then
perform the ablution and two units of nawafil prayer, relying on Allah ta’alaa
and sending salutations on the Prophet (s) and say the following …“O
Allah, I ask you and turn to you by Your Prophet Muhammad (s), the Prophet of Mercy. Ya Muhammed!!! I turn by you
to my Lord and your Lord aza wajjal for Him to settle my need for me. The
early Muslims [i.e. the Salaf] had their needs fulfilled by saying this” [Scans
:Here]
Next
Narration of Malik al-Dar
Part 1: Here
