Bida`ee Tawassul Refutation Series (Athar of Malik Ad Dar)

0 1 2 3 4 5

You are here: Home

Articles

Tawassul and Istegatha

Tawassul Refutation Series (Athar of Abu Ayub Al Ansaree RA)

Bida`ee Tawassul Refutation Series (Athar of Malik Ad Dar)

User Rating:

/ 147

Published Date

Written by Asim ul Haq

The Athar

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar (his khilafah), whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”"

a) Hafidh Ibne Hajar Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari

وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري

Ibn Abu Shaybah narrated it with a Authentic chain the narration from Abi Salih as Samaan from Malik al Dar(end)

b) Ibne Katheer authenticated the chain.

Reply

Objections on this Athar

If the chain is Authentic that does not mean it can be apply to the Text.(Asool al Hadeeth)
According to Asharis the hadeeth Should be Mutwatir for creed so even if it is proven saheeh its not Hujjah for them because it is not Mutwatir.
We can not Base our Creed from Dreams because Islam is Complete.
Abu Muawiyah Muhammad bin Hazim is Mudallis
Malik Ad Dar is disputed Over (some says Known and Some says Unknown).
Inqita (discontinuity in the chain) between Abu Salih As Samaan and Malik Ad Darr.
Amash is Mudallis and narrating from (AN).
These words (that a man came to the grave of Prophet...) are Munkar because Bukhari mentioned the Saying of Omar RA in tareekh al Kabeer from same Malik ad dar and these words are not there.
This Athar is against the Athar of Omar RA (Mentioned in Saheeh Bukhari)
Scholars on the hadith of Umar ra
Logical Arguments on the hadeeth by Umm Abdullah (including the person is majhul who came to the grave of Prophet and he never told Omar ra this whole story)
.

Objection no: 1 ( If chain is authentic that does not mean it can be apply to the Text.)

Ibne Katheer and Ibne Hjar never authenticated hadeeth but the chain

Proof for this claim is as follows

a) Ibn Katheer says:

" الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً "

The fact that the chain is deemed to be authentic or hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text,because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]

Important Note: Ibne Kathir Authenticated the chain of the hadith of Malik ad Dar but as it is evident according to him if chain is authentic that does not mean hadith is also authentic, For example he authenticated the chain of the hadeeth of Mahmood bin Lobaid in prohibition of saying three divorces at a time in (Irshad al Faqeeh Vol 2 page 194) by saying "Narrated by Nisai with good and powerful chain" but he himself said in his (Commentary of Quran Under 2:229) regarding same narration that "There is Inqitah (Discontinuity) in the chain".

b) Hafidh Ibn e hjar asqalani

He never authenticated the hadeeth even according to him if chain is authentic that does not mean hadeeth is also authentic for example he himself weakened the hadith of Amash where he is narrating from the mode (An) Ibne Hajar said

لأنه لا يلزم من كون رجاله ثقات أن يكون صحيحا لأن الأعمش مدلس ولم ينكر سماعه من عطاء

Because trustworthiness of the chain does not mean that its sahih (meaning hadeeths is sahih) Amash is mudallis and he did not narrate his sama from Ataa[Talkhees al hubeer no: 1181]

Comment: This is a proof that Hafiz Ibne Hajar and Ibne Kathir never authenticated the hadeeth itself, and according to Ibne Hajar Amash is not proof in his tadlees see further quotes.

c) Al-Haafiz ibn al-Salaah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

" قولهم : ( هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد أو حسن الإسناد ) دون قولهم : هذا حديث صحيح أو حديث حسن لأنه قد يقال : هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولا يصح لكونه شاذا أو معللا "

When they say “This hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad or a hasan isnaad” instead of “this is a saheeh hadeeth or a hasan hadeeth”, that is because it may be said that this hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad but it is not saheeh per se because it is shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Muqaddimah fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 23)]

d) Al-‘Iraaqi said in his Alfiyyah:

" والحكم للإسناد بالصحة أو *** بالحسن دون الحكم للمتن رأوا "

The ruling that the isnaad is saheeh or hasan does not necessarily apply to the text. [Al-Tabsirah wa’l-Tadhkirah (1/107)]

e) Hafidh Ibn al Qayyim al Joziyah RA said in his book Al-Sawaiq Al-Mursalah 2/395 [publisher Maktabah Al-Riyadh]:

أنَّ أهل العلم بالحديث لم يزالوا يقولون: صح عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- وذلك جزم منهم بأنه قاله ولم يكن مرادهم ما قاله بعض المتأخرين إنَّ المراد صحة السند لا صحة المتن ، بل هذا مراد من زعم أنَّ أحاديث رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- لا تفيد العلم، وإنما كان مرادهم صحة الإضافة إليه وأنه قاله، كما يجزمون بقولهم قال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وأمر ونهى وفعل رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم-، وحيث كان يقع لهم الوهم في ذلك يقولون يذكر عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- ويروى عنه ونحو ذلك، ومن له خبرة بالحديث يفرق بين قول أحدهم " هذا حديث صحيح" وبين قولهم "هذا إسناد صحيح"، فالأول جزم بصحة نسبته إلى رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلّم- والثاني شهادة بصحة سنده وقد يكون فيه علة أو شذوذ فيكون سنده صحيحا في نفسه

"The scholars of the science of hadith have always said 'It has been authentically reported from the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam' (Sahha 'Anhu); and this is doubtless affirmation from them that the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam said that, contrary to what some latecomers thought that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text. Instead such a saying [that this means authenticating the chain only and not the text] can only come from one who claims that the ahadith of Rasool 'alaihisalam donot result in [the listener having attained] knowledge [but just unsure thoughts that these may have been his words]. Instead they (the scholars of hadith) say 'It has been authentically reported from him' to mean that the saying is his, sallallaho'alaihiwasallam and that he said that. And this why they insist that 'He said', or 'He ordered' or He forbade' or 'He did' etc. But, when they have uncertainity that the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam said that, they would just say [using passive instead of active voice] 'It is reported from him or he is reported to have said' etc. Whoever has experience in this science, then he differentiates between حديث صحيح ('Authentic hadith') and صحيح الاسناد ('authentic chain'). The first is a doubtless affirmation to the authenticity of these words having been said by the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam and the second is only an affirmation that the chain itself is correct and authentic, while it is possible that the text may have defects like oddness (shuzooz: i.e. trustworthy narrators reporting differently from those who are even more trustworthy or against what is narrated by those who are greater in number than him and are as trustworthy as himself) or other defects ['illah: for example the memory of the trustworthy narrator became weak later and it is not possible to say whether he heard the hadith and narrated after or before memory loss etc.:]" (This Translation is taken from IA forum)
.

Objection no: 2.(According to Asharis the hadeeth Should be Mutwatir for creed so even if it is proven saheeh its not Hujjah for them because it is not Mutwatir.)

Its a well know fact that those who use this athar as an evidence they don't make creed on khabar al wahid.

GF HAaddad a Soofi says regarding establishing aqeedah and accused Shaykh Al Bani Rah

It is impermissible to say that the `aqida of Muslims today is different from that of the Sahaba but Ahl al-Sunna only admit mutawatir-rank evidence as a basis in defining Islamic `aqida. Only a handful of innovators such as Albani differed.

source: (see question no: 7)http://www.livingislam.org/n/qau_e.html

what is a Mutwatir hadeeth??

Ibn e Hjar mentioned regarding Mutwatir

As such, a Hadith is classified as Mutawatir only when it fulfils the following conditions:

1) It is reported by such a large number of narrators that under normal circumstances it would be impossible for them to conspire a lie.

2) Such a number exists throughout the chain of narration, i.e. from the beginning to the end.

3) The reporters must base their report on sense perception, i.e. on something that is heard or seen.

4) That the narration necessitates certain knowledge for the listener. (Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Sharh Nukhba al-Fikr, P.21).

Objection no: 3 (We can not Base our Creed from Dreams because Islam is Complete.)

Allah says in Chapter 5 verse 3

... This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion...

The religious innovations based on dreams are countless. Since the sharia (Islamic law) is complete, the claim that the Prophet (pbuh) has come in dreams with new additions must be false. Such a claim implies one of two things:

1. Either the Prophet (pbuh) did not fulfil his mission in his lifetime [he forgot to tell to the Sahabas and he is telling that to you now?], or

2. Allah was not aware of the future of the ummah, thus did not prescribe the necessary injunctions during the Prophet’s (pbuh) lifetime.

and No where Prophet peace be upon him told us that i will come to dream and you can base your aqeedah from that.

and Lastly Scholars say Regarding Dreams that They are not Evidences in Shari`ah.

a) Hafidh Ibne Katheer said

وقد ذكر الحافظ بن عساكر في ترجمة أحمد بن كثير وقال إنه كان من الصالحين أنه رأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبا بكر وعمر وهابيل، أنه استحلف هابيل ان هذا دمه فحلف له وذكر أنه سأل الله تعالى أن يجعل هذا المكان يستجاب عنده الدعاء فأجابه إلى ذلك وصدقه في ذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقال إنه وأبا بكر وعمر يزورون هذا المكان في كل يوم خميس وهذا منام لو صح عن أحمد بن كثير هذا لم يترتب عليه حكم شرعي والله أعلم

Hafidh Ibne Asakir mentioned in the Biography of Ahmad bin Katheer, he said he was in Pious People and he saw Prophet peace be upon him,Abu bakar RadhiAllahanho, Omar RadhiAllahAnho and Habeel (and after quoting whole dream he said) هذا لم يترتب عليه حكم شرعي والله أعلم that is it is not Ruling of Shariy`ah

Al Bidaya Wal Nihaya vol 1 Page 105 and 106

b) Imam Nawawi said:

{فَرْعٌ} لَوْ كَانَتْ لَيْلَةُ الثَّلَاثِينَ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ وَلَمْ يَرَ النَّاسُ الْهِلَالَ فَرَأَى إنْسَانٌ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْمَنَامِ فَقَالَ لَهُ اللَّيْلَةُ أَوَّلُ رَمَضَانَ لَمْ يَصِحَّ الصَّوْمُ بِهَذَا الْمَنَامِ لَا لِصَاحِبِ الْمَنَامِ وَلَا لغيره ذكره القاضي حسين فِي الْفَتَاوَى وَآخَرُونَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا وَنَقَلَ الْقَاضِي عِيَاضٌ الْإِجْمَاعَ عَلَيْهِ وَقَدْ قَرَّرْتُهُ بِدَلَائِلِهِ فِي أَوَّلِ شَرْحِ صَحِيحِ مُسْلِ

''Fara': If the night is thirteenth night of Sha'baan, and people don't find. (the moon never appeared). And if a person saw the Prophet, may the mercy and blessing of Allah be upon him, in dream. And the Prophet inform him (in dream), ''this night is first of Ramadhan.'' Then the fast is not right, neither for the person who saw the dream nor for other. This is mentioned by Qadhi Husain and others. And Qadhi Iyadh has mentioned the Ijma' (consensus) on this. I have collected the proofs for it in First of ''Sharh Sahih Muslim''['Al-Majmoo' Sharh
al-Muhaddhab'] Source: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?ID=2517&start=0&idfrom=3857&idto=3857&bookid=14&Hashiya=10

c) Ibn Hajar said

فالذي في الخبر رؤيا منام فلا حجة

The dream in this hadith is not evidence [Fathul Baari :Vol 9 Page 145]

source: http://islamww.com/booksww/pg.php?b=1926&pageID=5114

Here he says that Dream is not Evidence

d) Al Aine`ee

فالذي في الخبر رؤيا منام فلا حجة فيه

The dream in this hadith is not evidence [Umda tul Qari under same Athar of Thobiya]

e) Kirmani said

الرؤيا ليست بدليل
Dream is not evidence

f) Hafidh Al Iraqi Said

أنه لو أخبر صادق عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في النوم بحكم شرعي مخالف لما تقرر في الشريعة لم نعتمده

If any truthful gives the information of Shariyah that Prophet(pbuh) told him in dream, which is against the Shariyah then we would not rely on that dream.
[طرح التثريب ص 215 / 8].

Comment: Meaning if some one say Prophet peace be upon him told me this and this in the dream, but in reality the sayings of Prophet peace be upon him in the dream is against actual sayings mentioned in ahadeeth, then we will reject the dream of the person

g) Hafidh Shatib`ee Said

وربما قال بعضهم : رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في النوم ، فقال لي كذا وأمرني بكذا ، فيعمل بها ويترك بها معرضاً عن الحدود الموضوعة في الشريعة ، وهو خطأ ، لأن الرؤيا من غير الأنبياء لا يحكم بها شرعاً على حال إلا أن تعرض على ما في أيدينا من الأحكام الشرعية ، فإن سوغتها عمل بمقتضاها ، وإلا وجب تركها والإعراض عنها ،

And sometimes some people say i have seen prophet(pbuh) in a dream, prophet(pbuh) has said these things to me, he has given me orders of these things, and he starts practicing on it and due to this he leaves the boundaries of Islamic law and this is a mistake because dream of non-prophet's on any issue cannot be included under part of Islamic law and we cannot reject the Islamic law which is with us. It is obligatory that the the dreams which clashes with the shariyah has to be left and rejected.

Al Aites`aam PAGE 184

Objection no: 4. (Abu Muawiyah Muhammad bin Hazim is Mudallis)

Ibn Saad said:

He narrated many ahadeeth, he used to do tadlees, he was a Murji [Tabqaat Ibn Sad 6/392]

al-Alaai mentioned him in his book of Mudalliseen [p 109]

Abu Zur`a Ibn al Iraqi mentioned him in his book of Mudalliseen [page 53]

Students of hadith know that If mudallis narrates from (AN) then He is not Evidence, Imam Shafiee said in his ar-Risalah:1033

ومن عرفناه دلس مرة فقد أبان لنا عورته فى روايته
If We know some one has done tadlees for once, He has shown us his faults

Then he said

لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتى يقول فيه حدثني أو سمعت

We do not take hadeeth from a mudallis unless he say Haddathanee (Hadeeth narrated to me) or Samiatu (I heard him)(ar-Risalah:1035 also quoted by Sakhawi in Fth ul Mughees be Sharah al-Faqeehul hadeeth]

Objection no:5 Malik Ad Dar is disputed Over (some says Known and Some says Unknown).

He is disputed over according to Ibne Hibban and Ibn e Saad etc he is known

and according to Imaam Nuruddin Al Haythami and Mundari he is unknown

Ibne Hibban said regarding him

مالك بن عياض الدار يروى عن عمر بن الخطاب روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وكان مولى لعمر بن الخطاب

Malik bin ‘Iyad ad-Dar He has taken traditions from Umar Faroq, and Abu Saleh al-Samman, and He was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab.

Kitab At Thiqqath Vol 5, Page No. 384

Ibn e Saad said

مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب وقد انتموا إلى جبلان من حمير وروى مالك الدار عن أبي بكر الصديق وعمر رحمهما الله روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وكان معروفا

Malik ad-Dar was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. He reported traditions from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and ‘Umar, and Abu Salih Samman reported traditions from him. He was well known[Tabqaat al Kubra Vol 5 Page 12]

but on the Other hand

Noor ud din Haythami said in Majma Az Zawaid regarding his narration

رواه الطبراني في الكبير . ومالك الدار لم أعرفه وبقيه رجاله ثقات

Narrated by At Tabranee in Kabeer and I don't know about Malik ad Dar , and other narrators are Trustworthy

Hafidh Mundhari also records the same in his Thargeeb wat Tharheeb

ومالك الدار لا أعرفه

Malik Ad Dar is not Known [Targheeb At Tarheeb 2/29]

Imam Bukhari mentioned him in Tareekh al Kabeer Vol 7 Page 304 and mentioned no Jarh no Tadeel

Imam Ibne Abi Hatim mentioned him in Al Jarh Wa Tadeel and mentioned no Jarh and Tadeel on him
.
Note: Shaykh Irshad ul Haq Athree said If Ibn Abee Haatim remain silent about a narrator in his book al-Jarh WaTa’deel this is evidence that the narrator is unknown according to him, see his book Taudheeh al-Kalaam (2/441-442)

Objection no: 6 Inqita (discontinuity in the chain) between Abu Salih Al Samaan and Malik Ad Darr.)

There is Inqita between Abu Salih Samaan and Malik Darr. Its for this reason why Ibn Hajr in Fathul baari gives the verdict as follows :

وروى بن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري]

Ibn Abu Shaybah narrated it with a Authentic chain the narration from Abi Salih as Samaan from Malik al Dar(end)

This means that the chain is sahih only Up to Abu salih otherwise he would just simply said: It's Isnaad is Sahih! 2ndly Hafidh Khalili in kitaabul Irshad says , after saying he was tabiyee and quoted the same narration after that he said

يقال إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث والباقون ارسلوه

It is said:Abu Salih hear it directly from Malik Darr and others (muhadditheen) say he gave it the way as Mursal

Al-Irshad fi Ma'rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/314)

Yaqaal is seegha tamreedh (the mode of doubt), so it is doubtful that Abu Saleh heard this hadeeth from Malik ad-Dar and other muhadditheen say he did not hear,Therefore those who wish to take al-Khalili's verdict on Malik should also take his verdict on the hadeeth, for he himself is alluding to its weakness.

Objection no: 7 Amash is Mudallis and narrating from (AN).

Amash is Mudallis Hafiz Ibne Hajar mentioned him in Tabqa Thaniyah in [Tabqaat al Mudalliseen (2/55)] but he also mentioned him in 3rd Martaba of Mudalliseen in [Al Nikat al Ibn al Salah (2/640)]

In this chain Amash is Narrating from (An) and Mudallis is not Evidence in his tadlees, But, Hafiz Dahabee said

He is mudallis, and sometimes he narrates in this manner from a weak narrator without realising it. When he says haddathana [he told us], there is no problem with that, but when he says 'an [narrating from], there is the possibility of tadlees except in the case of narration from the shuyookh from whom he narrated a great deal, such as Ibraaheem, Abu Waa'il and Abu Saalih al-Sammaan. His narration from these shaykhs is to be understood as meaning that he heard directly from them and there is no interruption in the chain. [Mizaan al-I'tidaal (2/224)]

Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai said.

There could be two meanings of the saying of Dahabee.

1.Normally the narrations from These sauyukh of Amash are presumed to posses sound linkage because in these narrations most of them we find his hearing from his teachers

2. All the narrations from these shuyukh are to be understood as meaning that there is no interruption in the chain

if we take 2nd meaning then it is wrong because of different reasons,

Al hadith no: 66 page 9

Download Al hadith no: 66 from here: http://ircpk.com/mujallat_1.html

Then Shaykh provided different sayings of scholars where Amash is narrating hadith (An) abu saleh (meaning he is doing tadlees) and Muhadditheen said its weak due to tadlees of Amash.

Muhaditheen who declare the ahadith of Amash weak, where he narrates with the mode (an) and where he narrates from Abu Saleh with the mode (an) that if Amash narrate from (An) then he is not Evidence

1. Hafidh An Nawawi

Nawawi said regaring the hadith of Amash where he was narrating from (An)

وَالْأَعْمَش مُدَلِّس وَقَدْ قَدَّمْنَا أَنَّ الْمُدَلِّس لَا يُحْتَجّ

Hafiz Nawawi said regarding Amash (An) Abi Saleh

أَنَّ الْأَعْمَش مُدَلِّسٌ وَالْمُدَلِّس إِذَا قَالَ ( عَنْ ) لَا يُحْتَجّ بِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَثْبُتَ سَمَاعُهُ مِنْ جِهَةٍ أُخْرَى وَقَدْ قَدَّمْنَا فِي الْفُصُول وَفِي شَرْح الْمُقَدِّمَة أَنَّ مَا كَانَ فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ الْمُدَلِّسِينَ( بِعَنْ ) فَمَحْمُول عَلَى ثُبُوت سَمَاعهمْ مِنْ جِهَةٍ أُخْرَى . وَاَللَّه أَعْلَمُ . ‏

Commentary of sahih Muslim vol 1 under the hadeeth 109

Nawawi again said regarding hadith of Amash (AN) abi saleh

عَنْ الْأَعْمَش عَنْ أَبِي صَالِح , وَالْأَعْمَش مُدَلِّسٌ وَالْمُدَلِّسُ إِذَا قَالَ : ( عَنْ ) لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ

Summary of saying is that

Amash was mudallis and if mudallis narrates from (AN) then He is not Evidence and (MunAN) narrations of Mudalliseen in Sahihyeen(Bukhari and Muslim) are presumed to possess sound linkage.

2. Hafiz ibn e jozi said regarding the hadeeth of Amash from Abi saleh

هاذا حديث لا يصح

This hadith is not authentic.

and then he quoted Imam Ahmad by saying

There is no Asal of this hadeeth and Imam Ahmad said that Amash didn't heard this from Abu Saleh

Al alal al mutnahiyah vol 1 page 437 hadith 736

3. Hafiz ibn al qattan said regarding the hadith where Amash is narrating from Abu saleh

ومعنعن الاعمش عرضة لتبين الانقطاع فإنه مدلس

Here he said that Amash is mudallis and there is Inqeta in chain

Bayan al wahim wal ihyaam vol 2 hadith 441

4. Al Hakim writes in reference to a hadith about Laylat al Qadr with the isnad al A'mash from ('an) Abu Salih.

لم يسمع هذا الحديث الأعمش من أبي صالح

Al Hakim says: "Al A'mash did not hear this hadith from Abu Salih", and offers an alternate isnad by way of al A'mash and Suhayl b. Abi Salih

Ma'rifat 'Ulum al Hadith (ـ35)

5. Sufiyan bin saeed thawri said

: « لم يسمع الأعمش هذا الحديث من أبي صالح الإمام ضامن.

Amash didn’t herad this hadith of Imam Zamin from Abi saleh

Sunan al Kubra al behqi 3/127, Tareekh Ibne Maieen Riwayat ad Dorri 3/497

6. Al Bayhaqi points out the defect in the Hadith of Amash from Abi Saleh saying that

And Amash surely didn't heard this hadeeth from Abu Saleh.

Sunan Al Kubra 1/430

7 Abu al Fadhal Muhammad bin Abi Hussain Al Harwi (317 h) mentioned same defect regarding hadith of Amash from Abi Saleh in (Ilal Al Ahadeeth fe Kitab Al Saheeh Muslim page 138 hadeeth 35)

8. Ibne Hibban said

و أمّا المدلسون الذين هم ثقات و عدول فإنا لا نحتج باخبارهم الا ما بينوا السماع في ما رووا مثل الثوري و الاعمش و أبي اسحاق و أضرابهم

Those mudallisoon who are ThIqqah Adil but we take only those narrations in evidence from them in which they do tasreeh of sama like Thawri, Al Amash and Abu Ishaq.

Al Ihsan vol 1 page 161

9. Imam Ibne Jareer Tabree said

إن الأعمش عندهم مدلس، ولا يجوز عندهم من قبول خبر المدلس إلا ما قال فيه حدثنا أو سمعت وما أشبه ذلك

Al Amash is Mudallis according to me, and It is not allowed according to m to accept the narration of mudallis except he sais i heard this hadeeth or narrated to us (end)(Tahzeeb al Athar Musnad Ali bin abi Talib page 4 after the hadeeth no: 3)

and so many other References can be provided, and one more thing to be noted that Abbas Ridvi Brelvi who is famous debater of Brelvism in Pakistan he said

10. Abbas Ridvi Brelvi Did Jirha on Amash (An) Abi saleh hadeeth and Said

ایک راوی امام اعمش ہیں جو اگرچہ بہت بڑے امام ہیں لیکن مدلس ہیں اور مدلس راوی جب عن سے روایت کرے تو اس کی روایت بالاتفاق مردود ہو گی

A Narrator is Imam Amash, Who is greatest Imam but he is Mudallis and when Mudallis narrate with (AN) then his Narration is Bil Ittefaaq Rejected

Wallah aap Zindah hain page 251 (Wallah You(peace be upon him) are Alive page 351)

11. In a narration of Mustadrak Al Hakim from the Route Amash (AN) Abi Wail

Aisha RA did Takzeeb of Amar bin Al Aas ra (Vol 4 Page 13)

This is not acceptable because Amash is doing tadlees.

And in Tareekh Yaqoob bin Sufiyan Al Farsi vol 2 page 771

Huzaifa RA pointed out Abu Moosa Al Ashari to be a Munafiq

but this hadeeth is weak due to Tadlees of Amash. what will these people say regarding these ahadith?

12. and Lastly

Abu Dawud in his Sunan records the hadith in the way al Bayhaqi mentions, namely with the chain: al A'mash from a man from Abu Salih, with an unnamed intermediary between al A'mash and Abu Salih ‏

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏الحسن بن علي ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏ابن نمير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الأعمش ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏نبئت ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي صالح ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏ولا ‏ ‏أراني إلا قد ‏ ‏سمعته ‏ ‏منه ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏مثله ‏

Amash said

(From Abu saleh and i think i have heard this from Abu Saleh)

Abu Dawood Kitab as-Salaah hadeeth no: 517

http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=860&idto=861&bk_no=55&ID=176

Note: he himslef is in doubt whether he heard this hadith from Abu Saleh or not

So surely we can Conclude Amash was Mudallis and if he narrates from the mode (AN) then he is not evidence.

Objection no: 8 These words (that a man came to the grave of Prophet...) are wrong

Evidence from same Malik ad Dar

[١٢٩٥] مالك بن عياض الدار أن عمر قال في قحط يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه قاله علي عن محمد بن خازم عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار

Malik ad Dar said Omar RA said in Drought

O Allah, I exert myself to the full until I am completely exhausted.[Tareekh al kabeer vol 7 page 304]

This hadith also a proof that Muhammad bin Hazim is Mudallis, because he is omitting Amash from the chain and here he did not narrate words of a person coming to the grave of Prophet peace be upon him.

Objection no: 9. This Athar is against the Athar of Omar RA (Mentioned in Saheeh Bukhari)

This is the Athar in Buhkhari

Bukhari Volume 2, Book 17, Number 123:

Narrated Anas:

Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain." And so it would rain.(end)

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen Commented

The hadeeth referred to by the questioner is a saheeh hadeeth which was narrated by al-Bukhaari, but anyone who studies it will find that it is evidence that one should not seek help from Allaah by virtue of the status of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or of anyone else, because tawassul (using a means to achieve a goal) and al-waseelah is the thing that helps you to achieve that goal. The waseelah referred to in this hadeeth ("we used to ask You for rain by virtue of our Prophet and You gave us rain. Now we ask You for rain by virtue of the paternal uncle of our Prophet, so give us rain" and they would be given rain) is seeking the help of Allah by virtue of the du'aa' of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as a man said: "O Messenger of Allaah, our wealth has been destroyed and the roads are cut off, so pray to Allaah to help us." And because 'Umar said to al-'Abbaas: "Get up, O 'Abbaas, and pray to Allaah, so he prayed to Allaah." If this had come under the heading of seeking Allaah's help by virtue of a person's status only, then 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) would have sought the help ofo Allaah by virtue of the status of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) before doing so by virtue of the status of al-'Abbaas, because the status of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is greater before Allaah than that of al-'Abbaas or anyone else. If this hadeeth came under the heading of seeking the help of Allaah by virtue of status that it would have been more appropriate for the ameer al-mu'mineen 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) to seek the help of Allaah by virtue of the status of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), not the status of al-'Abbaas ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib.

To sum up, there is nothing wrong with seeking the help of Allaah by means of the du'aa' of a person who it is hoped will have his du'aa's answered because of his righteousness. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) used to seek the help of Allaah by means of the du'aa' of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for them. Similarly, 'Umar sought the help of Allaah by means of the du'aa' of al-'Abbaas ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib (may Allaah be pleased with him). So if you think a man is righteous and likely to have his du'aa's answered because his food, drink, clothing and housing are halaal, and because he is known to be a man of worship and piety, there is nothing wrong with asking him to pray to Allaah for you and ask for what you like, on condition that this does not stir up self-admiration in this person whom you ask to make du'aa' for you. If it does stir up self-admiration, then it is not permissible for you to doom him by making this request of him, because that will harm him. Majmoo' Fataawa wa Rasaa'il Ibn 'Uthaymeen (2/277).

Objection no: 10 Muhadditheen on the hadith of Umar ra

Saying of Imam Mahmood Alusi on the athar of Umar ra:

he, said in Tafsir of the Ayat: “Seek Wasilah to Him” (Maidah : 35) in his ‘Ruh Al-Ma’ani”

“And if we suppose it there is not but Iqsam (swearing) with alive and Tawassul (intermediation) with him, and making his (saw) state of life as his state of death in this topic needs a clear text and probably the text is opposed to that, as there is in “Sahih Al-Bukhari” from Anas that “Umar ibn Al-Khattab when they faced drought sought rain with Abbas and said: “O Allah we used to do Tawassul with Your Prophet (saw) and You gave us rain, and now we do Tawassul to You with the uncle of our Prophet, give us rain” and they were given rain. And if there was Tawassul with him (saw) after his departure from this world, why did they turn to other than him? Rather they would have said: “O Allah we do Tawassul with Your Prophet, give us rain.”

And they are far away from turning away from the Tawassul of the Prophet (saw) to the Tawassul with his uncle ‘Abbas…while they were first forerunners (As-Sabiqun Al-Awalun), and they were more knowledgeable than us about Allah and His Prophet (saw), and the rights of Allah and His Prophet saw, what is legislated in invocation and what is not legislated, and they were in time of huge need, they were seeking relief from difficulties and easiness of difficult, and descent of rain with all ways, this is clear proof that the legislated is what they did without others…

As for the first information, the saying of Umar : “We used to do Tawassul with Your Prophet (saw)” and as for second his saying : “and now we do Tawassul with uncle of Your Prophet (saw)” because it is said : This Tawassul is not from chapter of Iqsam rather it is from categories of seeking intercession, and this is to seek invocation from an individual and his intercession, and seeking from Allah that he accepts his invocation and intercession. And this is supported by the fact that Abbas was invoking and they were trusting his invocation until rain came.”

Imam Alusi said further: “Secondly, people have increased in invoking other than Allah from loved Awliya from dead and other, like saying “Ya Sayidi Fulan Aghithni” (O so and so saint, save me) and this is not from permitted kinds of Tawassul in anything…a great number of scholars have considered this to be polytheism…and I do not see anybody who says this except that he believes that the invoked alive absent or hidden dead knows the invisible or hears his saying and is capable by himself or with other to bring good and remove problems, and if not he would not call him nor open his mouth, and in this there is a great test from Allah… (end of Al Alousi words)

Saying of Allamah Ropuri On the athar of Umar ra

The action of this unknown man is in fact a proof against people advocating Istishfa on grave. ‘Allamah ‘Abdullah Ar-Ropuri said in his “Sima’ Mawta” p 101-102:

“It is known that this is not a prove for you but against you, because he was told in the dream to go to ‘Umar, and ‘Umar was alive at that time, so it is known that intercession of people alive should be sought not from dead…what you mentioned to support you is in fact refuting you, and despite this you do not understand, may Allah help you to pay attention: “he who struggles to seek will find and he who knocks with determination at the door will enter. ” End of Allamah Ar-Ropuri’s words.

And none of the Muhadith like Al-Bukhari, the authors of Sunnan and lowest books has a chapter about seeking intercession from the Prophet (saw) beside his grave.

Hafiz Suyuti on the athar of Umar ra

Imaam Suyooti in his work :الأمر بالاتباع والنهي عن الابتداع -السيوطي Under the Chapter تعظيم الأماكن التي لا تستحق التعظيم (Veneration of those places which are not applicable for veneration) On page 25 he said

فإن قصد القبور للدعاء رجاء الإجابة فمنهي عنه، وهو إلى التحريم أقرب. والصحابة رضي الله
عنهم - وقد أجدبوا مراتٍ - ودهمتهم نوائب بعد موته (، فهلا جاءوا فاستسقوا واستغاثوا عند قبر
النبي ( وهو أكرم الخلق على الله عز وجل، بل خرج فيهم سيدنا عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه
بالعباس عم النبي ( إلى المصلى فاستسقى به، ولم يستسقوا عند قبر النبي (.
فاقتد أيها المسلم إن كنت عبد الله بسلفك الصالح، وتحقق التوحيد الخالص؛ فلا تعبد إلا الله، ولا
تشرك بربك أحداً، كما أمر الله تعالى بقوله: (فإياي فاعبدون)، وقال تعالى: (فمن كان يرجو لقاء ربه
فليعمل عملاً صالحاً ولا يشرك بعبادة ربه أحداً). فلا تعبد إلا إياه ولا تد ع إلا هو، ولا تستعن إلا به،
فإنه لا مانع ولا معطي ولا مضار ولا نافع إلا هو سبحانه وتعالى، لا إله إلا هو عليه توكلت وإليه
أنيب

For Verily visiting the graves with the intention that our prayers will be accepted is not allowed and it is closer to Haram

Sahaba faced so many difficulties after the death of Prophet (peace be upon him) drought came to them,........ so Why didn't they came to the grave of Prophet of Allah? Why they didn't requested him (peace be upon him) for rain? Why they didn't call at his grave? Prophet (SAW) is the highest of the creation in the sight of Allah

In fact at the time of drought OMAR Ra went to Eid GAH with Abbas RA and asked him to pray for rain(prayer of istesqa see Sahih bukhari for detailed athar). They never prayed near grave of Prophet (peace be upon him). O Muslim If You are follower of Allah like your Salaf as Saleh were so follow them, do Research of Correct Tauheed, Do not Worship other then Allah, Do not Make Partners of Allah. As Allah Commanded (Therefore worship Me.) and Allah says (So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord.'') (end)

Objection no: 11 Logical Arguments by Umm Abdullah (including the person is majhul who came to the grave of Prophet and he never told Omar ra this whole story)

And see this link for great Logical Arguments provided by Sister Umm Abdullah

http://saheefah.org/2008/04/14/detailed-look-at-the-narration-of-malik-al-dar/

Logical Arguments

The ones who use this hadith for this type of tawassul say that Umar radiyallahu anhu did not rebuke the man who did istisqa’ at the grave.

Reply: There is no clear evidence in the hadith indicating that the man told Umar of him going to the grave, but clearly he did tell him of the dream, telling him the message of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

so to say that he told him about his istisqa’ at the grave is an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.
It didn’t rain until after Umar radiyallahu anhu made istisqa’ by al Abbas radiyallahu anhum.

If the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was capable or had permission to do du’aa to Allah after his death, when asked by others, then it would have rained immediately after the man asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam at his grave, but it didn’t until after Umar’s istisqa’ through the duaa of Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.

This shows that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, was guiding the man to ask the umar to do istisqa’ and not him, hinting to Umar by saying to him “be clever!“, and when Umar did istisqa’ by al Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma) it immediately rained..
If going to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to ask him to make duaa to Allah was permissable, Umar radiyallahu anhu would have done that when wanting to do istisqa’ instead of doing it through the uncle of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, who was alive, and Umar’s (r.a) saying “we used to make tawassul through your Prophet’s duaa, and now we do tawassul through the uncle of your Prophet…”, indicates that they don’t make tawassul through the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) duaa after his death, and only when he was alive, or else why would he say “we used to”?
If what the man did (wether it was Bilal ibn al Harith radiyallahu anhu or someone else) was correct\permissable, then:
- Why didn’t any of the scholars I quoted mention the narration in a chapter titled (tawassul by the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) or some title indicating that the narration is EVIDENCE for permissibility of that type of tawassul?
  
  Instead they title the chapter in which the narration is in (salat al istisqa’- the man didn’t do salat al Istisqa’ at the grave, only did duaa, while Umar rA did salat al istisqa) , (The people asking the Imam to do istisqa’ in times of drought), he didn’t say “intercession through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam”, wouldn’t it be more important to point out the permissibility of tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death, which is stronger than doing tawassul through the righteous and ahl al bayt?
  
  Instead they ignored that part , showing no importance to it at all.
  
  So if they believed that the narration indicates the permissibility of such a tawassul, why didn’t they at least hint to it by the chapter title or a comment like they did to show that it meant to do intercession through saliheen and ahl al bayt, and ask the imam to do istisqa?
- What was the point of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam telling Umar r.A “be clever“?
- If the man told Umar that he went to the grave, and then told him about the dream, why would Umar do salat al istisqa’ when the man already asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa’ and he told him that they will be watered?
  
  Isn’t the istisqa’ of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam sufficient?
- If the action of the man was correct (to ask the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa), and the Prophet S.A.W answered his request, then why didn’t it rain immediately after the dream, and instead came down immediately after al Abbas’s (radiyallahu anhu) duaa?
  
  Who is higher in status, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or his uncle?