/****** Font Awesome ******/ /****** Collapsing Nested Menu Items | Code by Elegant Themes ******/

THE HADITH OF THE MAN IN NEED After Death of Prophet [salehalawaalihi wasalam]


Moreover, Tabarani, in his “al-Mu’jam al saghir”, reports a hadith from ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf that a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need.

The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter – this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar – so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said:

“Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak’as of prayer therein, and say:

‘O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I turn through you to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,’

and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman].”

So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion.

‘Uthman asked, “What do you need?” and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, “I hadn’t remembered your need until just now,” adding, “Whenever you need something, just mention it.”

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the authenticity of this


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


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

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

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

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


More reply to Albani and Wahabis regarding this Hadith 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now Quoting the Wahabi Argument 

Hamdi al-Salafi contradicted him saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[end quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First Point

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

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

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

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

Also

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

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


Second Point

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

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

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

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

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

Abu Zur‘ah considered Shabib to be thiqah

Abu Hatim considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Nisà’i considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Dhuhali considered Shabib to be thiqah

al-Dàraqutni considered Shabib to be thiqah

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


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

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

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

Mahmud pointing towards another forgery of Albani 


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

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

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

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

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

al-Daraqutni consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Tabaràni consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Ibn Hibbàn consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Hàkim consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Abu Zur‘ah consider Shabib to be Thiqa

Abu Hàtim consider Shabib to be Thiqa

al-Nasà’i consider Shabib to be Thiqa

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

Rather,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followinng Imams Called this Hadith Sahih and refuted Ibn Taymiyyah 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First Point

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

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

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


Ibn Taymiyyah Deviance example # 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibn Taymiyyah Deviance example # 2 

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

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

This hadith is rigorously authentic (sahih)
.

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

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


Fourth Point

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

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

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

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

A Subterfuge and its Preclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabib and the Hadith of the Man in Need 

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

We will deal with the sanad of two versions primarily:


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

SECTION 1:

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

Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol. 4, no. 534)
 mentioned Shabib as follows:


[ 534 ] خ خد س البخاري وأبي داود في الناسخ والمنسوخ والنسائي شبيب بن سعيد التميمي الحبطي أبو سعيد البصري روى عن أبان بن أبي عياش وروح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد الأيلي وغيره وعنه بن وهب ويحيى بن أيوب وزيد بن بشر الحضرمي وابنه أحمد بن شبيب قال بن المديني ثقة كان يختلف في تجارة إلى مصر وكتابه كتاب صحيح وقال أبو زرعة لا بأس به وقال أبو حاتم كان عنده كتب يونس بن زيد وهو صالح الحديث لا بأس به وقال النسائي ليس به بأس وقال بن عدي ولشبيب نسخة الزهري عنده عن يونس عن الزهري أحاديث مستقيمة وحدث عنه بن وهب بأحاديث مناكير وذكره بن حبان في الثقات قلت وقال بن يونس في تاريخ الغرباء مات بالبصرة سنة ست وثمانين ومائة فيما ذكره البخاري وقال الدارقطني ثقةونقل بن خلفون توثيقه عن الذهلي ولما ذكره بن عدي وقال الكلام المتقدم قال بعده ولعل شبيبا لما قدم مصر في تجارته كتب عنه بن وهب من حفظه فغلط ووهم وأرجو أن لا يتعمد الكذب وإذا حدث عنه ابنه أحمد فكأنه شبيب آخر يعني يجود وقال الطبراني في الأوسط ثقة


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


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

Shabib ibn Sa’eed in Thiqat of Ibn Hibban


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


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


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

روى عن روح بن القاسم ويونس بن يزيد ومحمد بن عمرو

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

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


Ibn al-Madini 
said: Thiqa – Trustworthy

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Dhuhli
 made Tawthiq (declared him Thiqa)

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

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

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

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


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

Ali Ibn al-Madini,

al-Dhuhli,

al-Daraqutni,

al-Tabarani,

Ibn Hibban,

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


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

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

Abu Zur`ah,

Nasa’i,

Abu Hatim.

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


SECTION 2:

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

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


‘Ali ibn al-Madini said about Shabib:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Ibn Abi Hatim says regarding Shabib ibn Sa’id Abu Sa’id al Tamimi, father of Ahmad ibn Shabib bin sa’id al Basri. He narrated from Rauh ibn Qaasim and Younus ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn ‘amr. From him narrated Ibn Wahb and his son Ahmad ibn Shabib ibn Sai’d who said that i heard my father saying that and i asked him concerning it and he said he had with him the book of Yunus. He is righteous in hadith and there is no harm in him. Abdal rahman said Abu Zurah said shabib bin saeed – la ba’s bihi – there is no harm in him. Ibn wahb wrote from him in Egypt.


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

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

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

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


Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamil Fil-Du’afa:

Hadith of The Man In Need After Death of Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم

[rough translation]


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Another scholar whose statements are misinterpreted and manipulated by the psuedo Salafis is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.


Salafis often mention that Ibn Hajar writes about Shabib, in his Muqaddimah: “al-Bukhari narrated some ahadith from him via his son, which he narrated from Yunus. And he never narrated from him anything from anyone other than Yunus…”
 (1/429)

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

This is, of course, nonsense!

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

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

He says:


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


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

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


Conclusion:

1) Many of the Ulema gave Shabeeb general tawtheeq.

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

2) The classical scholars/Ulema have not laid any condition that Shabib’s narration only be acceptable if they are from Yunus.
Moreover, Shabib was from Basra, as was Rawh bin Al-Qasim (who he reports this hadith from). This was an advantage for Shabib, as there is an added strength to the chain of a local narrating from a local.

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

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

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

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

More Replies to Albani Objection on Hadith

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

Quote:


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


Reply 


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

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

Quote:


1. ALBANI’S TAMPERING WITH THE HADITH ITSELF

It is reported by Ahmad and others with an authentic chain of narration from Uthmaan bin Haneef [sic] “that a blind man came to the Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) and said, ‘supplicate to Allaah that He should cure me.’ So he (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) ordered him to make wudoo, and to make wudoo well, and to pray two rak’ahs and to supplicate with this du’aa, ‘O Allaah I ask you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy, O Muhammad I have turned by means of you (i.e. your du`aa) [sic] to my Lord in this need of mine, so that it may be fulfilled for me, O Allaah accept him as supplicant on my behalf, and accept my supplication for him (to be accepted for me) [sic].’ He said, ‘So the man did it and he was cured.'”

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 68]


REPLY And analysis 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


2. ALBANI’S DISSENT AND CONTEMPT FOR THE SCHOLARS

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


Reply and Analysis 

Observe how he says “the opponents,” although it is he who has brought opposition to something established in Islam, and he invented that it is not through the Prophet’s sacred status (hurmat) or person (dhaat) but through his du`a that tawassul is permissible, in open contradiction to the understanding of the Salaf such as Mujahid,


Imam Malik Who ] said to al-Mansur inside the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina: “Face him [the Prophet] and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi).”


References for above statement of Imam Malik [rah][/B]

► It is cited by al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) with a sound (sahih) chain,

► and also cited by al-Samhudi in Khulasat al-Wafa, Subki in Shifa’ al-siqam, Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya, 

►Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik

► and Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat al-zuwwar.

► See also Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-munki p. 244.

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

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

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


And 

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

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

Quote:

Then Albani said 


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

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 69]


Reply and Analysis 


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

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

(hurma) of Muhammad that He relent towards him,

as we havealready mentioned 

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


The importance of this remark does not lie in the veracity of the hadith, which is a separate discussion and Ibn al-Jawzi clearly considers it 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.

Quote:


Albani Said 

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

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

For the hadiths of Tawassal and proofs 
Click Here )

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


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

Quote:


Then Albani Said 

2) The Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) promised that he would make du’aa for him, after advising him of what would be better for him, and this was his (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) should supplicate for him, as he said, ‘Supplicate to Him.’ Which means that the Messenger (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) definitely did make du’aa for him, since he (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم), out of his mercy and desire that Allaah, the Most High, should answer his du’aa for him, guided the blind man to using the second type of lawful and prescribed tawassul, which is tawassul by means of righteous actions, in order to combine the different types of good.So he ordered him to make wudoo, and to pray two rak’ahs, and then to make du’aa for himself…

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 70]


Reply and Analysis 


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

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



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

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

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

Quote:


AlbANI SAID
Then he [Ghumari] says, ‘Even if we admit that the Prophet (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) made du’aa for. However since du’aa from him (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) du’aa after his death, therefore the ruling is different, and this admission of al-Ghumaaree is a proof against him.

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 71-72]


Reply


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

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

References of This hadiths


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings p. 120]

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

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

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

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

References :

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (Calcutta 1853 ed.) 6:164 #8350.]
4. It is further disproved by Hasan al-Saqqaf’s rebuttal of Albani’s discourse and entire method on this hadith in Saqqaf’s preface to `Abd Allah al-Ghumari’s refutation of Albani entitled Irgham al-mubtadi` al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi (The compulsion of the ignorant innovator with the permissibility of seeking means with the Prophet):

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

Quote:


Albani Said 

That in the du’aa which Allaahs Messenger (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) person, or his status, or his right, since the meaning is, ‘O Allaah accept his (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) supplication for You to restore my sight.’
[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]


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

Therefore the du`a contains the following steps:

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

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

This proves:


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

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

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

Quote:


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



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

Quote:

Albani than Says


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 (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) du’aa and not his person.

[Albani, Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings]

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


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