"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.
End quote from at-Tawassul, p. 75ff [http://islamqa.info/en/97600]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBANI'S REWORDING OF THE PROPHET'S
DU`A OF TAWASSUL
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:
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] [Albani, Tawassul p.
38.]
The proofs that Albani alone purports to see -- against what the majority understand -- are characteristic of the "Salafi" method. As the scholars who debate them well know, the "Salafi" method consists in a lack of method in and a 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 tawassulof the blind man wa through his (SAW) du'aa and not his person. [Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]
Again: The hadith is about the asking for the intercession, not the intercession itself. Clearly, the one hoping intercession needs to ask, and the reason he is asking is because of the intercessor's status. Is this not obvious?
That from what the Prophet (SAW) taught the blind man was, 'And accept my supplication [shafaa'ah] for him'... This sentence is an authentic part of the hadeeth, it is reported by Ahmad and al-Haakim who authenticated it with 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!
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 ) ;
whereas,
Hamdi
al-Salafi contradicted
him saying:
"There
is no doubt about the authenticity of that part of the
hadith [concerning the story of
the blind man]17; the doubt
concerns the [first part of]
the story [concerning
‘Uthman ibn 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]."
---
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 Egypt for trade. His book was authentic
(sahih). ” 39
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 Iraq to
produce a single man who can narrate [as well] as he does.
”
Al-Albàni ’s declaring
the narration of ‘Aun, which in fact is weak, to
be better than the narration of those who narrated the story [of
‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is a third aspect of Al-Albani’s duplicity
and fraud because when al-Hakim related the hadith of the blind man
in an abridged form by way of ‘Aun, he remarked :
Shabib
ibn Sa‘id al-Habati has given the same hadith by way of
Rauh ibn al-Qàsim with some additions to the text (matn ) and the
chain of narrators (isnàd) . The decision in the matter is Shabib’s
since he is utterly reliable (thiqah) and trustworthy (ma’mun)
.
What al-Hakim says emphasizes a precept
which is universally recognized by the experts in the science of
hadith (al-muhaddithun) and the principles of the holy law (usul
al-fiqh) ; namely, that additional wording related by a narrator who
is utterly reliable (thiqah) is acceptable (maqbulah ) , and,
furthermore, someone who remembered something is a proof against
someone who didn’t remember it.
Third Point
Al-Albani saw
al-Hakim’s statement but he didn’t like it, so he ignored it, and
obstinately and dishonestly insisted on the superiority of ‘Aun’s
weak narration.
It has been made clear that the story
[about ‘Uthmàn ibn Hunaif] is rigorously authentic (sahih) in
spite of Al-Albàni’s [and Ibn Taimiyah’s] deceitful attempts to
discredit it. The story shows that seeking the Prophet’s
[sallallahu alayhi wa sallam]intercession after his passing away is
permissible since the 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:
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 for trade. His book was authentic (sahih).”
Mahmud
Sa‘id Mamduh points
out in Raf‘ al-Minarah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Tawassul wa al-Ziyàrah
, pp. 99-100, that the accuracy ( ضبط )
of a narrator [which along with integrity (‘adàlah / عدالة )
establishes reliability] is of two kinds: accuracy in respect of his
memory ( الحفظضبط),
and accuracy in respect of what he has written down (dabt
al-kitàbah).
‘Ali
al-Madini first declares that Shabib is utterly reliable (thiqah)
without stating any condition. Thereafter, he reinforces that by
stating that his book is also authentic without making his
reliability conditional on being from that book.
Thus
it blatantly clear that the ta’weel made by the Salafis from Ali
al-Madini’s statement that only his narrations from his books are
reliable is a lame illogical and unfounded inference clearly
influenced by their desire to make the hadith weak at all
costs!
Similarly this conclusion cannot be drawn from what
Ibn Abi Hatim says about Shabib in al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil:
شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد التميمي والد أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد البصري
روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو
روى عنه عبد الله بن وهب وابنه أحمد بن شبيب بن سعيد سمعت أبى يقول ذلك وسألته عنه فقال كان عنده كتب يونس بن يزيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به نا عبد الرحمن قال سمعت أبا زرعة يقول شبيب بن سعيد لا باس به بصرى كتب عنه بن وهب بمصر
Ibn
Abi Hatim says [rough translation] regarding Shabib ibn Sa'id Abu
Sa'id al Tamimi, father of Ahmad ibn Shabib bin sa'id al Basri. He
narrated from Rauh ibn Qaasim and Younus ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn
'amr. From him narrated Ibn Wahb and his son Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn
Sai'd who said that i heard my father saying that and i asked him
concerning it and he said he had with him the book of Yunus. He is
righteous in hadith and there is no harm in him. Abdal rahman said
Abu Zurah said shabib bin saeed - la ba's bihi - there is no harm in
him. Ibn wahb wrote from him in Egypt.
As
you notice there is no stipulation that 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 Egypt on a business trip [as Ibn Adi
mentioned] and not to actually report ahadith. Hence on this one
occasion (of un-preparedness) there was the possibility of
erroneously reporting some things (as he was after all
fallible).
Bottom line: what is criticized is the
transmission: Ibn Wahb --> Shabib
Ibn `Adi praises Ahmad’s
narration of Shabib’s ahadeeth from Yunus.
But, as you
may have noticed in the above notice from Ibn Adi there is no
stipulation from him that Shabib’s narration must be from Yunus ibn
Yazid in order to be authentic (sahih).
He merely praises
it – as does Ibn Abi Hatim's in Al-Jarh Wa Al-Ta'dil and Ali
al-Madani as shown above.
This, of course, does not mean that if
Shabib were to narrate from anyone else it would not be
accepted.
Anyone who claims as such is making an unfounded
ta’wil based on his hawwa!
If Ibn Adi’s statement is
taken literally, then this is all that we can gain from it:
1-
The narration of Ahmad -> Shabib -> Yunus is excellent
2-
What Ibn Wahb reported from Shabib in Egypt is not accepted, and in
it are mistakes
3- There is nothing preventing the narrations
that don't fall under the conditions referred to in #1 and #2 from
being sahih.
Another
scholar whose statements are misinterpreted and manipulated by
the 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 Basra, as was Rawh bin Al-Qasim (who he reports this hadith
from). This was an advantage for Shabib, as there is an added
strength to the chain of a local narrating from a local.
This
was the case with Malik too who made an effort to report almost
solely from Madinian people, which is one of the reasons why his
narrations were so acceptable.
3) Some
Ulema did question the narrations of Ibn Wahb from Shabib. So,
according to these Ulema the chain of Imam al-Tabarani is
problematic.
BUT,
the chain from al-Dalail an-Nabuwah does not contain Ibn Wahb! So,
Alhamdulillah, no problem there!
4) A
further condition was mentioned by some such as Ibn Hajar that Ahmad
ibn Shabib narrate from his father [Shabib]. Again, this condition is
met in the version from Dalail al-Nubuwwa!
Thus
it is all crystal
clear –
the isnad of the Hadith of the man in Need as cited by Bayhaqi in
Dalail al-Nubuwwa is AUTHENTIC.
The deception
employed
by the Salafiyya is Clearly Evident.
---
more info/NOTES: Here
----
(Edited by ADHM)
---
%2BON%2BUSING%2BTAWASSUL%2BTO%2BREQUEST%2BFOR%2BNEEDS%2Bal-wasiyyah-translated-by-aisha-bewley.jpg){kind=spacer}
Next
Narration of Malik al-Dar
